Skip to main content

Full text of "The Catholic controversy"

See other formats

r/ ixv 





Library of St. Francis De Sales, 



Very Rev. H. B. Canon MAC KEY, O.S.B. 



. Bishop of Newport 


Edited from the Autograph MSS. at Rome and at Annbcy. 





t - ' / 

/ / ' 


The following Treatise is the message or teaching of 
S. Francis de Sales to the Calvinists of the Chablais, 
reluctantly written out because they would not go to 
hear him preach. The Saint neither published it nor 
named it. We have called it " The Catholic Contro- 
versy," partly to make our title correspond as nearly 
as possible with the title "Les Controverses," given 
by the French editor when the work was posthumously 
published, chiefly because its scope is to state and 
justify the Catholic doctrine as against Calvin and 
his fellow-heretics. It is the Catholic position, and 
the defence of Catholicism as such. At the same 
time it is incidentally the defence of Christianity, 
because his justification of Catholicism lies just in 
this that it alone is Christianity ; and his argument 
turns entirely on the fundamental question of the 
exclusive authority of the Catholic Church, as the 
sole representative of Christianity and Christ. This 
is the real point at issue between the Church and 
the sects, and therefore he, as officer of the Church, 
begins by traversing the commission of those who 
teach against her. He shows at length, in Part I., 
that she alone has Mission, that she alone is sent to 
teach, and that thus their authority is void, and their 
teaching but the vain teaching of men. 

SEP 8 1982 

vi Translator s P7^eface. 

This teaching he tests in Part II. by the Eule of 
Faith. Assuming as common ground that the Word 
of God is the Eule of Faith, he shows that the so- 
called reformers have composed a false Scripture, and 
that they err also in rejecting Tradition or the un- 
written Word of God. And then, proceeding to the 
central point of his case, he shows that while the 
Word of God is the formal Eule of Faith, is the 
external standard by which faith is to be measured 
and adjusted, there is need of a judge who may 
explain, apply, and declare the meaning of the Word. 
That judge is the Holy Catholic Church. She is thus 
the necessary exponent of the Eule of right-believing, 
and each of the voices by which she utters her 
decision becomes also a part of the Eule of Faith, viz., 
her own general body, Councils, Fathers, and her 
supreme Head and mouthpiece, the Pope, the successor 
of S. Peter and Vicar of Christ. Miracles and harmony 
of doctrines may be considered the complement of 
the Eule of Faith. In all these matters the Saint 
proves conclusively that the Catholic Church alone 
fulfils the necessary conditions. 

In Part III. he comes to the doctrines of the Church 
in detail, but of this Part there only remain to us three 
chapters on the Sacraments and an Essay on Purgatory. 

This may suffice as to the aim and subject-matter 
of the Treatise. Of its intrinsic merits the author's 
name is sufficient guarantee, but we add more direct 
testimony because it is a new revelation of the Saint. 

The Bull of Doctorate calls it " a complete demon- 
stration of Catholic doctrine." Alibrandi, in the Pro- 
cessus, speaks of " the incredible power of his words," 
and says in particular that no other writer, as far as 

Translator s Preface. vii 

he knows, has "so conclusively, fully, and lucidly 
explained the Church's teaching on the primacy, in- 
fallible magistermiii, and other prerogatives of the 
successors of S. Peter." Hamon, in his Life of the 
Saint,^ says : " If we consider it, not as disfigured by 
its first editor, who made it unrecognisable in trying 
to perfect it, but as it left its author's hands, we see 
that it is of inestimable value, that it presents the 
proofs of the Catholic Church with an irresistible 
force." Its first editor, Leonard, says : " We are 
entirely of the opinion that this book deserves to be 
esteemed beyond all the others he has composed." 
The Mother de Chaugy, superior of Annecy, in her 
circular letter of 1661 to the Houses of the Visitation, 
writes thus : " It is considered that this Treatise is 
calculated to produce as much fruit amongst heretics 
for their conversion as the Introduction to a Devout 
Life amongst Catholics for devotion. And their Lord- 
ships our Judges (for the cause of Canonization) say 
that S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose and S. Augustine have 
not more zealously defended the faith than our Blessed 
Father has done." 

Cardinal Zacchetti, in introducing the cause of 
Beatification, gives a furtlier proof of its excellence 
in describing the effect it had on the obstinate men for 
whom it was composed : " When the inhabitants of 
the Chablais were forbidden by magisterial decree to 
attend his sermons or frequent his company, he began 
to fight with his pen, and wrote to them a letter 
accompanied with certain selected arguments for the 
Catholic faith, by which he recalled so great a multi- 
tude of wandering souls to the Church that he happily 

* I. 167. 

viii Translator s Preface, 

raised up and restored first Thonon and then the 
other parishes." 

And the power of the work lies not in its substance 
only but also in its manner. It is true controversy, 
yet unlike all other controversy. He seems to follow 
the same method as in his practical theology, making 
the difficult easy, turning the rough into smooth. 
What S. Thomas and the grand theologians have done 
for learned men, S. Francis has done for the general 
people. He ever seems to have little ones in his 
mind, to be speaking and writing for them. We see 
in this Treatise the leading of the same spirit which 
made him love to preach to children, and to nuns, 
and to the poor country people ; which made him keep 
in his own establishment and teach with his own lips 
the poor deaf-mute of whom we read in his Life. It 
is in great measure this spirit which gives him such 
an affinity with our age in that sympathy with the 
weak and miserable which is one of its best and 
noblest tendencies. And here again we have a strik- 
ing proof of his genius. " It is perhaps harder," say 
the Bollandists in their petition for his Doctorate 
(xxxv), "to write correctly on dogmatic, moral, and 
ascetic subjects in such a way as to be understood by 
the unlearned and not despised by the learned, than 
to compose the greater works of theology; it is a 
difficulty only overcome by the best men." 

We must now satisfy our readers that we offer them 
a faithful text of a work of such extreme value. This 
is the more necessary on the ground that it is an 
unfinished and posthumous production, and it is 
especially incumbent upon us, because we put forward 
our edition as representing in English ^ first edition^ 

Translator s Preface, ix 

the first printing of the true text. Ours is veritably 
a new work by S. Francis brought out in this nine- 
teenth century. 

The original was written on fugitive separate 
sheets, which were copied and distributed week by 
week, sometimes being placarded in the streets and 
squares. The Saint did not consider them of suffi- 
cient importance to be mentioned in the list of his 
works contained in the Preface to the Love of God, 
but they were carefully written, and he preserved a 
copy more or less complete which bears marks of 
being revised by him later, and which he speaks of 
to the Archbishop of Vienne (L. 170), as "studies" 
suitable for use in a future work on "a method of 
converting heretics by holy preaching." 

The first we hear of a portion of these sheets is in 
the " Life " by his nephew, Charles Auguste de Sales, 
who gives a rather full and very accurate analysis of 
them. They are labelled in his " Table des Preuves " 
(63) as follows: "Fragment of the work of S. Francis 
de Sales, Provost of Geneva, on the Marks of the 
Church and the Primacy of S. Peter ; written partly 
with his own hand when he was at Thonon for the 
conversion of the Chablais. We have the original on 
paper." These fragments were the chief part of the 
article on Scripture, the article on Tradition, the chief 
part of the article on the Pope, and half that on 
the Church. The parts "written with his own hand" 
were those on Scripture and Tradition. 

This abstract was made before 1633 (^^^ Saint died 
at the end of 1622), and exactly a quarter of a century 
after that date, when Charles Auguste had been bishop 
fourteen years, he " discovered " the whole manuscript 

X Translator s Preface, 

as we have it now, except a comparatively small 
portion which was, and is. preserved at Annecy. The 
MS. was contained with other papers in a plain deal 
box which for greater security during those disturbed 
times had been cemented into the thick wall of an 
archive-chamber. Of this fact he gave the following 
attestation : — 

" We testify to all whom it may concern that on 
the 14th May of the present year 1658, when we were 
in our chateau of La Thuille, from which we had been 
absent fourteen years, and were turning over the records 
of our archives, we found twelve large manuscript books, 
in the hand of the venerable servant of God and our 
predecessor, Francis de Sales, in which are treated 
many points of theology which are in controversy 
between Catholic doctors and the heretics, especially 
concerning the authority of the Supreme Eoman Pontiff 
and Yicar of Jesus Christ and successor of Blessed 
Peter. We also found three other books on the same 
matters, which were written by another hand except 
as to three pages which are in the hand of the afore- 
said servant of God. All these we consigned to the 
Eev. Pather Andrew de Chaugy, Minim, Procurator 
in the cause of Beatification of the servant of God." * 

Father de Chaugy, who sent, or probably took, them 
to Eome, gives the following attestation. The names of 

* The Bisliop does not mention the sheets he had handled before 
1633, but we have no doubt, from internal evidence, that they formed 
part of what he found in 1658, though they were probably placed in 
the deal coffer by another hand. They are all together at the end of 
the MS., except that the part on the Pope has been brought next to 
that part of the autograph which treats of the same subject, thus 
placing the parts on Scripture and Tradition one step away from their 
companion sheets. 

Translator s Preface, xi 

witnesses will easily be recognised by those who are 
familiar with the Saint's life : — 

" I, Brother Andrew de Chaugy, Minim, Procurator 
of the Religious of the Visitation for the Canonization 
of the venerable servant of God, M. de Sales, Bishop 
and Prince of Geneva, certify that I have procured to 
be witnessed that these present Manuscripts, which 
treat of the authority and primacy of S. Peter and of 
the sovereign Pontiffs his successors, are written and 
dictated in the hand and style of the venerable servant 
of God, M. Francis de Sales. 

" Those who have witnessed them are M. the Marquis 
de Lullin, Governor of the Chablais ; the Reverend 
Father Prior of the Carthusians of Ripaille ; M. Sera- 
phin. Canon of Geneva, aged 8o years ; M. Jannus, 
Superior of Brens in Chablais ; M. Gard, Canon of the 
Collegiate Church of Our Lady at Annecy ; M. F. 
Fauvre, who was twenty years valet to the servant of 

"All the above witnesses certify that the said 
writings are of the hand and composition of this great 
Bishop of Geneva, and they even certify that they have 
heard him preach part of them when he converted 
the countries of Gex and Chablais." 

M. de Castagnery and M. de Blancheville testify 
that "part was written by the Saint, and that the 
other part, written by the hand of his secretary, was 
corrected by him." 

From the many other attestations, given by the 
chief officials, ecclesiastical and civil, of the diocese 
and county, we select a part of one given by the Rev. 
Father Louis Rofavier, Chief Secretary to the Commis- 
sion of Beatification and Canonization. 

xii Translator s Preface, 

"... Amongst other most authentic papers there 
were found some cahiers in folio, written by the Saint's 
own hand, and others by a foreign hand but noted and 
corrected by him, which proved to be one of the 
Treatises of Controversy composed by him during his 
mission to the Chablais . . . which Treatise was in- 
serted in the Acts, and produced under requisition, that 
the court of Eome might have due regard to so excellent 
a work in defence of the Holy Koman Church. The 
requisition and production having been made it was 
judged fit to send the original to our Holy Father Pope 
Alexander YII. ... I have had the honour of hand- 
ling it and of inserting it in the Acts, and moreover of 
having a faithful copy of it made to be hereafter pub- 
lished." The Marquis de Sales speaks of "two or 
three copies." 

The autograph, with the attestations in original, 
was deposited by the Pope in the archives of the Chigi 
family to which he belonged ; and there we will leave 
it for the present while we follow the fortunes of the 
copy which had been made for publication. It was 
placed in the hands of Leonard of Paris, editor of the 
Saint's other works, who brought it out in 1672. We 
have only to endorse M. Hamon's above quoted con- 
demnation of this edition. Leonard himself says : 
" We have not added or diminished or changed any- 
thing in the substance of the matter, and only softened 
a few of the words." But such an editor puts his own 
meaning on the expressions he uses. As a fact there 
is not a single page or half-page which does not contain 
serious omissions, additions, and faulty alterations of 
matters more or less substantial. The verbal changes 
are to be counted by thousands ; in fact the nerve is 

Translator's Preface. xiil 

quite taken out of the expression, the terse, vigorous 
and personal sixteenth century language of the man of 
genius being buried under the trivial manner of the 
everyday writer employed by L(^onard eighty years 
later. The style and wording of the original make it a 
monument of early French literature and the nascent 
powers of the French tongue. 

Leonard, again, has garbled the Saint's quotations, 
and almost habitually given the wrong references to 
the Fathers. In the MS. the citations are in almost 
every case correct as to the sense though free as to the 
words, and the references are most exact, though too 
hastily and briefly jotted down to be of much use to 
a careless and self-sufficient editor. 

Finally, Leonard has made most serious mistakes 
as to order. He has quite failed to grasp the true 
division of Part II., simple and logical as it is. He 
has mingled in almost inextricable confusion the 
sections on the Church, the Councils, the Fathers, 
miracles, and reason,* he has unnecessarily repeated 
sections on Scripture and on the Indefectibility of the 
Church, while saying no word of a second recension 
of the section on the Pope which contains some 
important additions to the first. He has dragged 
out of their proper places parts on the unity of the 
Church, on miracles, and on the analogy of faith, and 
thrust them respectively into the sections on the 
Pope, on the sanctity of the Church, and on the 
Fathers. In some places he alters the past tense into 

* For instance, Discours XLVI. is made np of a part on the Fathers, 
a part on the analogy of faith, and two parts, properly distinct from 
one another, on the unity of the Church. At each change he puts 
a note to apologise for the Saint's digressions. 

XIV Translator^ s Preface, 

the future to suit his changes, instead of letting him- 
self be guided back to the true order, and when he 
finds the Saint speaking of the last Part as Part III. 
he drops the numeral rather than give up his mistake 
in making it Part IV. He says the division into 
three parts is the Saint's own. So it is ; but Leonard 
does not follow it. He makes four parts, dividing 
Part II. into two, and then goes on to blame S. 
Francis for making a sub-section into a section. He 
divides the Treatise into ^' discours'' which is just 
what they were not. They had been ; that is, the 
book was worked up from sermons, but the Saint's 
very point was to turn these into ordinary writings, 
and he always speaks of his own divisions as chapters 
and articles. 

Such was Leonard's edition of 1672, and we find 
no further edition until that of Blaise in 182 1, which 
is merely a reprint as far as the Saint's own words 
go. It has thus almost all the faults of the first 
edition, with such deliberate further alterations as 
approved themselves to the Galilean editor. Some of 
the quotations are verified and references corrected, 
the discredit of the mistakes being attributed to the 
author instead of the first editor. The notes are the 
special feature, the special disgrace, of this edition. 
The editor cannot forgive S. Francis for upholding the 
full authority of the Pope, and the true principles of 
the Church with regard to such matters as miracles 
and heresy ; and his notes on the chapters treating 
of these subjects are full of such expressions as these : 
" the saintly author's innumerable negligences ; " 
" facts whose falsehood is generally recognised ; " 
" this sketch of the life of S. Peter must be corrected 

Translator's Preface, xv 

by reference to Fleury and others ; " " with what supe- 
riority Bossuet treats the question ! " " the Saint here " 
(speaking of the shameless Marot) " quits his usual 
moderation ; " " there reigns such an obscurity, such 
confusion in his citations ; " " he has quoted wrongly 
according to his custom ; " "this miracle is no better wit- 
nessed than most ; " " the relation of so many miracles 
shows that in his time there was little criticism ; " 
'' here he argues in a vicious circle." Blaise's chief 
indignation is reserved for the famous list of papal 
titles, on which he permits himself the following 
remark, at the end of a note of three pages : " S. 
Francis de Sales has collected at hazard fifty tiJes 
accorded to the Apostolic See. It would have been 
easy to augment the number without having recourse 
to forged records, false decretals, and a modern doctor, 
and still that would not be found which is sought for 
with so much ardour." 

We see how low the credit of the work must have 
been brought by a corrupt text and such annotations 
as these. It was not till 1833 that the publication 
by Blaise, in a supplementary volume, of part of the 
section on papal authority began to give an idea of 
the way in which the Saint had been misrepresented. 
Blaise's naive commendation of this part is the 
condemnation of all the rest, which is neither better 
nor worse than the section he amended : " this piece 
already forms part of our collection of the Works in 
the ' Controversies/ but so disfigured that we do not 
hesitate to offer it here as unpublished {inddite)!^ 
What he did for a part we have done, in an English 
version, for the whole. Vives in 1858 and Migne in 
1 86 1 brought out editions in which the new part was 

xvi Translator s Preface. 

printed and which had the grace to omit the Gallican 
notes, but otherwise the text remained the same as 
in the previous editions, no serious attempt apparently 
being made to follow up Blaise's discovery. Even 
the Abb^ Baudry, who spent his life in collecting, 
throughout France and Northern Italy, materials bear- 
ing on the life and works of S. Francis, and who 
made researches in the Vatican Library, only got so 
far as to have heard that the autograph was in the 
Chigi Library. It was brought forward at the Vatican 
Council, and made an immense impression upon the 
Fathers. But it was reserved for the present pub- 
lishers and translator to have the singular honour of 
resuscitating this glorious work, and of bringing it out 
in its true and full beauty. 

This autograph, still preserved in the Chigi Library, 
is a richly bound volume of foolscap size containing 
155 sheets numbered on one side, thus making 310 
pages. It is in bold writing, perfectly clear and easy 
to read, but with corrections and slips. Nearly every 
page has a cross at the top. The arranging and 
numbering of the sheets is not the Saint's, and there 
is much disorder here. There are some repetitions, 
chiefly on the Pope and on Scripture, and slight varia- 
tions, as might be expected in a work composed as this 
was, the Saint probably making more than one copy 
himself. We call it the autograph ; two portions of 
it, however, are not autograph, but, as the attesta- 
tions say, written by a secretary, and only noted and 
corrected by the Saint; — viz. (i.) sheets 76 to 90, 
containing the chief part of the section on Purgatory : 
(2.) one of the two recensions of the part on the 
Pope, and about half the section on the Church, 

Translator' s Preface, xvii 

sheets 121 to 155. We mention this in order to be 
strictly accurate, but there is no difference to be made 
between the autograph and the non-autograph parts. 
All the sheets were together, the section on Purgatory 
is taken up by the Saint in the middle of a sentence 
and completed by himself, the non-autograph part 
on the Church fits exactly into the autograph part, 
was analysed by Charles Auguste as the Saint's work 
within ten years after his death, and contains two 
chapters which occur again in autograph in Part I. 
The two recensions of the part on the Pope only 
differ in order and in a few sentences, those on Scrip- 
ture are both in the Saint's hand. The non-autograph 
part on the Church is extremely difficult to read, being 
badly written in German characters and badly spelt. 

With the autograph is a co^y, of the same date, 
bound in the same way, and very possibly one of the 
several copies spoken of by the Marquis De Sales. 
The writing is like print, large and clear, except in 
the last part, containing the second recension on the 
Pope and half the section on the Church, which are 
written in a cramped hand, and being copied from 
the difficult German character are full of misspells 
and grammatical errors. The copy contains 207 
sheets, numbered only on one side, forming 414 
pages. It is not quite complete, omitting the chief 
part of the article on Scripture, the first half of that 
on the Church, and the whole of Tradition. Except 
that it is not complete this copy is an exact transcript 
of the original, with which it has been most carefully 
collated. Our version has been made from this copy, 
graciously lent to us by Prince Chigi. The translator's 
brother has transcribed for him the omitted parts. 
III. h 

xviii Translator's Preface, 

This Eoman MS. is our chiei but not our only 
source. There is also an autograph portion of the 
work at Annecy, certified by the Vicar General of the 
diocese, Poncet, in an attestation given June 1 1 th, 
1875, and by the Mother Superior, exactly fitting in 
to the other MS. It contains some further most 
important portions on the Pope and on the Church, 
and almost all we have on Councils. This autograph 
has been printed for private circulation in the Pro- 
cessus, of which we have procured a certified copy. 

Our first duty was to arrange the Treatise in its 
proper order. Here the autograph and the copy were 
different from each other and from the printed text. 
The parts misplaced had to be brought back, and the 
whole distributed according to the logical plan laid 
down by the saintly author in the introduction to Part 
II. The Annecy autograph had to be rightly joined 
with the Eoman. Then came the question of omit- 
ting repetitions, viz., the parts on scandal, on Scripture, 
and on the Pope. Then had to be studied the many 
single sentences and words about which any dilfficulty 
arose. Such difficulties were not frequent concerning 
the autograph part, but in the non-autograph part 
they frequently occurred. The original was hard to 
make out, the copy was not of great assistance here, 
the printed text was all wrong. Sometimes the consi- 
deration of one word would occupy an hour or more 
in Eome or in England. But success was at last 
obtained, except in the three instances mentioned in 
the notes,* and scarcely amounting to two lines in 

* We have forgotten to mention that we took the responsibility of 
putting Fisher (p. 154) where the Annecy text spells "Fucher;" and 
(p. 180) of translating fleet (camre?^e«— ships) where the printed French 

Translator^ s Preface. xix 

all. Tne quotations had to be carefully verified and 
the true references given : the original was found to be 
correct in almost every instance. In fine, titles had to 
be placed to the three parts, and to such articles and 
chapters as had not received their headings from the 
Saint. We will now indicate the points which we 
consider to deserve special notice. 

(i.) The General Introduction will be seen to be 
made up, in the French text, of two parts. The end- 
ing of the first appears in the middle of the united 
parts. As the same words form the end of the whole 
Introduction (p. lo), we have omitted them on p. 4.* 
There is a second copy of that part of the Introduction 
which treats of scandal, carefully corrected by the 
Saint. We give it at the end of our Preface. 

(2.) The Discours which is called the first in the 
French being repeated in the second and third, we 
have omitted it, greatly clearing the text. The Saint 
gives no guide to the divisions here ; we have there- 
fore made our own divisions and titles of the first 
four chapters. 

(3.) The Introduction to Part 11. has a second 
treatment in another part of the MS., but there is no 
practical difference between the two. This Intro- 
duction is important as regulating the number of Parts, 

text has caravanes, which is certainly wrong. Our MS. copy has Car- 
varanie. The same incident is related in the Etendard de la Croix (II. 4) 
as having taken place in Visle Camarane. 

* The following lines, of no substantial importance, have been 
inadvertently omitted on this p. 4. "Yon will see in this Treatise 
good reasons — and which I will prove good — which will make you 
see clearly as the day that you are out of the way that must be followed 
for salvation ; and this not by fault of your holy guide, but in punish- 
ment of having left her." 

XX Translator s Preface. 

and the order of articles and chapters. Three Parts,* 
and three Parts only, are mentioned, and this division 
is confirmed in the Introduction to the next and 
last Part. The eight articles of Part II. are clearly 
indicated on p. 86. 

(4.) Of the first part of Article I., on Holy Scrip- 
ture, we have two very similar recensions. The first 
editor, who has been followed in subsequent French 
editions, adopted the plan of giving first the four 
chapters of the one, afterwards the four chapters of 
the other, with the efiect of burdening his text and 
confusing his readers. We have united the chapters 
which have the same titles, our table of contents 
showing the way in which the chapters have been 
blended. We have made an exception as to c. 7 
(the matter of which is given again in cc. 5, 8), 
because the arguments are put differently and from 
a different point of view. In c. 5 the Saint gives the 
heretical violation of Scripture as a consequence of 
their belief in private inspiration, in the others he 
gives them absolutely. In this part, particularly at 
the end of Discours xxxiii., the MS. gives many slight 
directions for locating the different points treated. 
Similar indications appear here and there throughout, 
and we need scarcely say that the Saint's intentions 
have been religiously observed by us. 

(5.) In cc. 9, 1 1 of this Article I. we have quota- 

* "We have just discovered in an obscure corner of the MS. a sentence 
which belongs to this subject, p. 87, and which is important as giving 
the object of Part III. " And because I could not easily prove that we 
Catholics have most strictly kept them (the Rules of Faith), without 
making too many interruptions and digressions, I will reserve this 
proof for Part III., which will also serve as a very solid confirmation 
of all this second Part." 

Translator's Preface, xxi 

tions from Montaigne. The fact of quoting him was 
made an objection against conferring the Doctorate, 
on the ground that Montaigne was not only a pro- 
fane but also an irreligious and immoral writer. The 
objection is sufficiently answered by Alibrandi's refer- 
ence to the practice of S. Paul and the Fathers, but 
there is a much fuller defence than that, both of the 
Saint and of Montaigne. It is enough here to say that 
these passages are taken from the grand and most 
religious essay " On Prayer," near the beginning of 
which Montaigne speaks as follows of what he calls 
his fantaisies informes et irresolues. " And I submit 
them to the judgment of those whose it is to regulate 
not only my actions and my writings but my thoughts 
likewise. Equally well taken by me will be their 
condemnation or their approbation, and I hold as 
impious and absurd anything which by ignorance or 
inadvertence may be found contained in this rhapsody 
contrary to the holy decisions and commands of the 
Catholic, Apostolic, and Eoman Church, in which I die 
and in which I was born. Wherefore, ever submitting 
myself to the authority of their censure, &c." 

(6.) Immediately after Scripture and Tradition we 
place the article on the Church. The French editions 
have here put that on the Pope, probably on account, 
originally, of a marginal note in the MS. at the 
beginning of that section: "this chapter to be put 
first for this part." The same note it probably was 
which led them to make this article the commence- 
ment of a Part III. It ought to have been clear that 
the Saint used the word part not for a division of his 
work but in the sense of subject. 

We have said that nothing can be more incorrect 

xxii Translator's Preface, 

and confusing than the order of the French printed 
texts in this Article III. The first four pages are 
right, though under a wrong title, but on p. 153 we 
come to a broken sentence : ^ " every proposition which 
stands this test ..." Leonard quickly finished it 
off with " is good," and then goes off in the same 
DiscouTs to the subject of Councils. We have been 
fortunate enough to find the continuation of the sen- 
tence and chapter in the Annecy autograph, which 
we now begin to use for the first time. " . . .1 
accept as most faithful and sound." It is not necessary 
to make further mention of the errors of the French 
editions down to our Chapter IV. Our Chapter 11. 
begins with another section from the Annecy MS. 
We have brought back the chapter On the unity of the 
Church in headship to its proper place here (c. 3), 
and relegated the parts on Fathers, and Councils, and 
the Pope, to their proper places elsewhere. With 
regard to the exquisite passage on the analogy be- 
tween the Creed and the Blessed Sacrament, whilst it 
certainly does not come between the Fathers and the 
Church where Leonard has thrust it (Discours XLVI.), 
we cannot be certain that it belongs strictly to Article 
VIIL (c. 2), where we have placed it, though it treats of 
the same subject. It exactly occupies sheet 3 i of the 

* We find in a detached note elsewhere an amplification of the 
sentence immediately preceding this. " As those who look at the neck 
of a dove see it change into as many various colours as they make 
changes of their point of view and their distance, so those who observe 
the Holy Scripture, through which, as through a neck, we receive 
heavenly nourishment, seem to themselves to see there all sorts of 
opinions according to the diversity of their passions. Is it not a 
marvellous thing to see how many kinds of heresies there have been up 
to now, the source of which their authors all confidently professed to 
show in the Holy Scriptures ? " 

Translator's Preface, xxiii 

Eoman autograph, and we are inclined to think that 
it was a sheet sent round separately. It may have 
been an abstract of his little printed work, Considera- 
tions on the Creed, and perhaps may have helped to 
produce the good effect referred to in a letter to Favre 
(5), written about the time when it would be going 
about : " The ministers have confessed that we drew 
good conclusions from the Holy Scriptures about the 
mystery of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar." 

(7.) Our text now runs on in substantial agreement 
with the French until the end of the article on the 
Church, except that we have transferred part of the 
section on Miracles to its proper place as Article VIL, 
and omitted from cc. 13, 14 what is already given in 
Part I. 

The verbal corrections, however, required in this 
article are very numerous. After c. 3 the MS. ceases 
for a time to be autograph, and the German character 
has puzzled our copyist and much more the French 
editor. Some examples may be of interest. 

" Si fecond " becomes " et tailleurs " in the copy •, 
Leonard removing the difficulty by substituting a safe 
but irrelevant text. "Frederick Staphyl" is in the copy 
"Sedenegue Stapsit," afterwards "Seneque Staphul" 
or " Staphu," Blaise supplying the note — " unknown 
work of an unknown author." Viv^s gives " Tilmann, 
Heshisme et Oraste ; " he also has " Yallenger " for 
" Bullinger," and " Tesanzaiis " for " Jehan Hus ; " 
both editors have "Tanzuelins" instead of "Zuingliens." 
There is some excuse for the word " vermeriques," 
which we have translated "fanatic" (p. 174); it turns 
out to be " suermericos," a favourite word with Coch- 
Iseus, probably from schwdrmer. "Diego of Alcala" 

XXIV Translator's Preface, 

becomes "Diogenes of Archada," "Judas" is put for 
" Donatus ; " " Heshushius," or " Zosime," or " Zuingle," 
for " Ochin." " Treves," '' patriarche," " ou moyne," 
become respectively " Thebes," " paterneche," " ^ 
moins." " Cochin " is turned into '* Virne." * Chid- 
abbe " escapes perversion because it is in autograph 
elsewhere, but Blaise, forgetting that the African S. 
Augustine is speaking, sagely informs us that "this 
mountain is in the environs of Thonon." The note 
on p. 191 represents a not unimportant restoration of 
the text. The copy had sapines, the printed text 
hesoins; the context easily guided one to the right 
word, psaulmes. 

In Article IV. we return to the Saint's own clear 
hand in the MS. and so to greater verbal correctness. 
Most of this invaluable section is supplied by the 
Annecy MS. 

(9.) Article VI., on the Pope, has been fairly well 
edited from the Koman MS. We are able to supply 
from the Annecy autograph a large and most impor- 
tant addition on the qualities of an ex cathedrd 
judgment (pp. 299-311), 

Of this Article we find two recensions in the Roman 
text, one in autograph, and the other, which lacks the 
first two chapters, not. The autograph is much superior 
on the whole, but the order of the other recension is 
better, and in this we have followed it. From it also 
we have introduced into our translation the important 

* One of Blaise's attacks on the Saint's "criticism" turns on this 
word. The statement here attributed to the Bishop of Virne is put 
down, in the Standard of the Cross, to the Bishop of Cecine. This latter 
word only requires the change of the first e into to make it an 
Italianized Cochin. 

Translator's Preface, xxv 

passage (pp. 2^6-7) : " And if the wills, &c." to end 
of paragraph. On the same p. 276 occurs the pregnant 
statement that the headship of Peter is the form of 
Apostolic unity, that is, that the Apostles formed one 
body precisely by virtue of their union with Peter. 
This word forme was correctly printed in Blaise's 
edition of this part in 1833, but Viv^s and Migne have 
altered it into fermeU. We have paid particular atten- 
tion to the important list of Papal titles (pp. 291-2). 
Blaise had certainly a right to complain of the mistakes 
in the references here, but they are the fault of the 
first editor, not of the author, and on careful examina- 
tion we find that of the fifty-three titles all are correct 
except perhaps two ; of which one cannot be traced, 
another attributes to Anacletus a letter which belongs 
to Siricius. Almost the same list is given in the first 
chapter of the Fabrian code. Article V. 

We have now said what we think necessary as to 
the substance of this work and as to our editing. As to 
its manner we only repeat that to many this volume 
will be a new revelation of the Saint. The same 
calm sanctity, the same heavenly wisdom, the same 
charisma of sweetness, pervade all his works, but as 
a controversialist, as a champion of the Church, he 
here puts on that martial bearing, takes up those 
mighty weapons, proper to inspire confidence into 
his comrades and to make his enemies quail before 

It is remarkable that after a sleep of ten genera- 
tions the Saint should appear first to preach again his 
true words in a country so similar to that for which 
they were first preached and providentially written. 
And though the heresy is more inveterate, yet it 13 

XXVI Translator s Preface, 

therefore the more excusable, and he comes, as he did 
not come to the Chablais, first recommended by his 
moral and devotional teaching. It is providential, 
too, that he should wait so long, that he should 
slumber during the fierce Galilean and Jansenist 
struggles of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 
that his words on these controverted matters should 
up to now be so doubtful that neither friend nor foe 
could safely dare to quote them. He appears like an 
ancient record, or rather like an ancient Prophet, to 
witness to the plain and simple belief of the Church 
in the days before these storms arose ; to prove to 
us that the Church's exclusive right to teach, the 
necessity of having Mission from her, the evilness of 
heresy, the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope 
are not inventions, not doctrines of to-day or yester- 
day, but the perpetual and necessary truths of Catholic 
faith. And this is the particular excellence of S. 
Prancis : he defends the Church from accusations of 
falseness, but indirectly he still more fully clears her 
doctrines of the charge of novelty.* It might well 
be thought that the Controversy of the sixteenth 
century would be somewhat out of date now. But 
this is not true of the present work, not only on 
account of the intrinsic efficacy of its argument and 
language, not only on account of the sort of prophetic 
insight by which he reaches in advance of his time 
and answers objections that had scarcely yet arisen, 
but chiefly because there lies behind the strength of 
his reasons the weight of his authority as a witness, 

* We have drawn this out at some length in our pamphlet en- 
titled " Four Essays on the Life and Writings of S. Francis De Sales," 
pp. 98-114. 

Translator s Preface, xxvii 

as a Doctor, we had almost said, in these days of rapid 
movement, as a Father of the Church. And there is 
no Doctor who better represents the true Catholic 
supernatural spirit, far removed from rationalism on 
the one hand, from superstition and fanaticism on the 
other. Instead of being an extremist, as Gallicans 
would nickname true believers, he was accused, in his 
own time, of lessening the fulness of Catholic doctrine. 
He says (p. 2) : " It will be seen that I deny a 
thousand impieties attributed to Catholics : this is not 
in order to escape from the difficulty, as some have 
said, but to follow the holy intention of the Church." 
He preaches the full but simple Catholic truth, and 
his teaching was at last accepted as such by the 
72,000 heretics of the Chablais. They had rejected 
Catholic doctrine when misunderstood, but when they 
understood what it was they hesitated indeed, from 
worldly motives, as to accepting it at all, but then 
they took it with simplicity as a whole, making no 
hesitation as to a part, or on the ground of inconsis- 
tency of part with part. Modern heretics would make 
such a distinction, there are even within the Church 
those who try to do so. For such we add, by way 
of conclusion to our Preface and of introduction to the 
Saint's argument, the testimony of an unsuspected 
witness of his own age : 

" What seems to me," says Montaigne, in the Essay 
" On Custom," " to bring so much disorder into our 
consciences in these troubles which we are in as to 
religious matters is this dispensation which Catholics 
make in their belief. They fancy they act as moderate 
and enlightened men when they grant their adversaries 
some article which is in debate. But besides that 

xxviii Translator^ s Preface, 

they do not see what an advantage it is to the man 
who attacks you to begin to yield to him, and to draw 
back yourself, and how this encourages him to pursue 
his advantage, — those articles which they choose as 
the lightest are sometimes very important. We must 
entirely submit to the authority of our ecclesiastical 
tribunal or entirely dispense ourselves from it; it is 
not for us to determine the amount of obedience we 
owe to it. Besides, — and I can say it as having tried 
it, because I formerly used this liberty of choosing 
for myself and of personal selection, holding in light 
esteem certain points of observance belonging to our 
Church, which appear on the face of them somewhat 
idle or strange ; — when I came to discuss them with 
learned men I have found that these things have a 
strong and very solid base, and that it is only folly 
and ignorance which make us receive them with less 
reverence than the rest"* 


Feait of S. Francis de Sales, 
2gth January 1886. 

* ["We append here the Saint's second treatment of the subject of 
scandal, see. p. 5.] There is nothing of which the Holy Scripture gives 
more warning, history mofe testimony, our age more experience, than 
of the facility with which man is scandalized. It is so great that there 
is nothing, however good it may be, from which he does not draw some 
occasion of his ruin ; being unhappy indeed in this that having every- 
where opportunities of drawing profit he turns and takes them all to 
his own disadvantage and misery. We may put so exactly into prac- 
tice what Plutarch teaches, — to draw benefit even from our enemy — 
that even sin, our capital enemy and the sovereign evil of the world, 
can bring us to the knowledge of self, to humility and contrition. 
And a good man's fall makes him afterwards walk straighter and 
more circumspectly. So true is the word of S. Paul : We Jcnoio that all 
things work together unto good to them that love God (Rom. viii. 28). 

Not indeed that sin within us helps us, or when no longer in us can 

Translator's Preface, xxix 

work us any good, for sin is bad in every sense, but from it can be 
derived occasions of great good which it would never of itself produce, 
imitating the bees which went and made honey within the putrid 
carcase of the fierce lion which Samson had slain. Is it not then a 
strange thing that being able to profit by all things, however bad they 
may be, we should turn all to our harm ? If indeed we only took evil 
from what is evil it would not be a great wonder, for that is what 
first offers ; if we drew evil from indifferent and harmless things 
nature would not be so much outraged, for these are arms which all 
hands may use : — though our baseness would still be great in that hav- 
ing it in our power to change everything into good by so easy and 
cheap an alchemy, for which one single spark of charity suffices, we 
were of so ill a disposition as to remain in our misery and procure our 
own hurt. But it is a wonderful thing, and passing all wonder, that 
in good, profitable, holy, divine things, in God himself, the malice of 
men finds matter to occupy itself with, to feed and to thrive upon ; 
that in a subject of infinite beauty it finds things to blame ; in this 
illimitable sea of all goodness it finds evil, and in the sovereign 
felicity the occasion of its misery. 

The great Simeon predicted of Our Lord, having him in his arms 
and the Holy Ghost in his soul, that the child would be the ruin of 
many and a sign to be contradicted. Almost the same had Isaias said 
long before when he called Our Lord a stone of stumbling and of 
scandal, according to the interpretation of S. Paul. Is there not here 
reason for lamenting the misery of man who stumbles and falls over 
the stone which had been placed for his firm support, who founds his 
perdition on the stone of salvation ? . . . But the necessity there is 
in this world that scandals should come must not serve as an excuse 
to him who by his bad life gives it, nor to him who receives it from 
the hand of the scandalizer, nor to him who of his own malice goes 
seeking and procuring it for himself. For as to those who give it, 
they have no other necessity than what lies in the design and resolu- 
tion which they have themselves made of living wickedly and viciously. 
They could if they liked, by the grace of God, avoid infecting and 
poisoning the world with the noisome exhalations of their sins, and 
be a good odour in Jesus Christ. The world, however, is so filled with 
sinners that, although many amend and are put back into grace, there 
always remains an infinite number who give testimony that scandal 
must needs come. Still, woe to him by ivhom scandal cometh. 

And as to those who forge scandals for themselves, tickling them- 
selves to make themselves laugh in their iniquities, who, like their 
forerunner, Esau, at the slightest difiiculty to their understanding in 
matters of faith, or to their will in the holy commandments, persuade 

XXX Translator s Preface, 

themselves that they will die if they do not alienate the portion which 
they have in the Church, — since they will have malediction and seek 
it, no wonder if they are accursed. Both the one and the other, the 
giver and the taker of scandal, are very wicked, but he who takes it 
without having it given to him is as much more cruel than the man 
who gives it as to destroy oneself is a more unnatural crime than to 
kill another. 

In fine, he who takes the scandal which is given, that is, who has 
some occasion of scandalizing himself and does so, can have no other 
excuse than Eve had with regard to the serpent, and Adam with regard 
to Eve, which Our God found unacceptable. And all of them, the 
scandalizer, the scandalized, and the taker of scandal, are inexcusable and 
guilty, but unequally. For the scandalized man has more infirmity, the 
scandalizer more malice, and the taker of scandal goes to the extreme 
of malice. The first is scandalized, the second is scandalous, the third 
scandalous and scandalized together. The first is wanting in firmness, 
the second in kindness towards others, the third in kindness towards 
himself. . . . 

How greatly this third form of scandal has been in use up to this 
present the universal testimony of ecclesiastical history shows us 
in a thousand places. We shall scarcely find as many instances of all 
the other vices as we shall find of this alone. Scandal, whether 
passive or taken, appears so thickly in the Scriptures that there is 
scarcely a chapter in which its marks are not seen. It would be point- 
ing out daylight at high noon to take much pains to produce the 
passages. These will serve for all. Did not those of Capharnaum 
scandalize themselves in good earnest over Our Lord's words, as S. 
John relates (vi.), saying : This is a hard saying, and who can hear it? 
And on what an occasion ! Because Our Lord is so good as to desire 
to nourish them with his flesh, because he says words of eternal life, 
do they turn against him. And over what do those labourers scandalize 
themselves — those (Matt, xx.) who murmured because the lord of the 
vineyard gave to the last comers as to the first — save over kindness 
and liberality and benefits ? "What ! says the good lord, is thy eye evU 
because I am good ? Who sees not, in that holy banquet and supper 
which was given to Our Lord at Bethany (John xii.), how Judas 
grows indignant and murmurs when he sees the honour which devout 
Magdalen does to her Saviour — how the sweetness of the odour of that 
poured out ointment off"ends the smell of that hideous reptile ? Al- 
ready then did they stumble over that holy stone. But since then — 
who could recount all that history tells us of the same ? All those 
who have abandoned the true Church, under what pretext soever, 
have made themselves [his imitators]. . . . 


Since the appearance of the first edition of this 
translation the French complete and definitive text 
of the original has been prepared and published, 
forming the first volume of the " GEuvres de Saint 
Franpois de Sales." In the researches necessary for 
this purpose various discoveries were made in addition 
to those which had already been utilised for the first 
English edition : a certain amount of new matter 
was found; the exact intention of the Author as to 
the order of his subjects became more evident; a 
number of verbal corrections were able to be effected. 
These discoveries had to be taken into account 
when it became necessary to make a second edition 
of the translation. The new material, which con- 
cerns the important subject of miracles and of the 
anology of faith with reason, was of course introduced 
as it stood, and will be found on pages 317 to 330 
of the present volume. With regard to the order of 
the divisions, as the only serious difference in that 
respect between the MS. and on previous editions 
was the attachment of the section on the " Marks of 
the Church " to the first part entitled " Mission " in 
our version, instead of to the second, " The Eule of 
Faith," it did not seem necessary to make a change. 
The verbal corrections regard principally the greater 

xxxii Note to the Second Edition, 

perfection of the French style, and are as a rule 
unimportant in a translation. They have therefore 
been adopted only on the few occasions when they 
were really important for the sense. The references 
to authors have been revised and corrected, but they 
are not given with the same fulness as in the French 
text. To this latter, it may be said in passing, are 
added an historical introduction to the work, and a 
list of writers posterior to the thirteenth century 
cited by the saintly Author, which do not figure in 
the present version. 


Feasl of our Holy Father 
St. Benedict, 1899. 


[The Roman numerals refer to the French ' * jDzscowrs."] 


Translator's Preface to the First Edition . . v 

Author's General Introduction i 

Note to the Second Edition xxxi 

Part L 


I. — The lack of mission in the ministers of the new pre- 
tended church leaves both them and their fol- 
lowers without excuse. [II.] . . . .II 
II. — That the pretended reformers had no mediate mission 

either from the people or the Bishops. [III., IV.] 13 
III. — The pretended reformers had no immediate or extra- 
ordinary mission from God. [V.] . . . . iS 
I v. — An answer to the two objections which are made by 
the supporters of the theory of immediate mission. 

[VI.] 26 

V. — That the invisible church from which the innovators 
pretend to derive their mission is a figment, and 
that the true Church of Christ is visible. [VII.] . 32 
VI. — Answer to the objections made against the visibility 

of the Church. [VIII.] 37 

VII. — That in the Church there are good and bad, predesti- 
nate and reprobate. [IX.] 41 

VI il. — Answer to the objections of those who would have 
the Church to consist of the predestinate alone. 

[X.] 46 

III. c 

xxxiv Contents. 


IX.— That the Church cannot perish. [XI.] ... 54 
X. — The counter- arguments of our adversaries, and the 

answers thereto. [XII.] Oo 

XL— That the Church has never been dispersed nor hidden. 

[XIII.] 63 

XII.— The Church cannot err. [XIV.] .... 68 
XIII.— The ministers have violated the authority of the 

Church. [XV.] 74 

Part H. 


Introduction S2 


Holy Scripture first Kule of Faith.— That the pke- 
TENDED Reformers have violated Holy Scripture, 
THE First Rule of our Faith. 


1. — The Scripture is a tiue rule of Christian faith. 

[XVI., part of XXL] 87 

II. — How jealous we should be of its integrity. [XVII., 

part of XXL] 89 

HI. — What are the sacred books of the Word of God. 

[XVIIL, part of XXIL] 91 

IV. — First violation of the Holy Scripture made by the 

reformers : by cutting off some of its parts. [XIX.] 96 
V. — Second violation of the Scriptures : by the rule which 

these reformers bring forward to distinguish the 

sacred books from the others : and of some smaller 

parts they cut off from them according to this rule. 

[Part of XX.] 103 

VI. — Answer to an objection. [Part of XXIL, part of XX.] 1 10 
VII. — How greatly the reformers have violated the integrity 

of the Scriptures. [Part of XXIIL] . . .114 

Contents, xxxv 


VIII. — How the majesty of the Scriptures has been violated 
in the interpretations and versions of the heretics. 

[XXIV., part of XXIIL] 119 

IX. — Of the profanations contained in the versions made 

into the vulgar tongue. [XXV.] . . . .122 
X.— Of the profanation of the Scriptures through the 
facility they pretend there is in understanding 

Scripture. [Part of XXVI.] 129 

XI.— On the profanation of the Scriptures in the versified 
psalms used by the pretended reformers. [Part of 

XXVL, part of XXIIL] 133 

XII. — Answer to objections, and conclusion of this first 

article. [XXVII.] 137 


That the Church of the Pretendees has violated the 
Apostolic Traditions, the Second Rule of our Faith. 


I. — What is understood by Apostolic traditions. [XXVIIL] 142 
II. — That there are Apostolic traditions in the Church. 

[XXIX] 146 

The Church : Third Rule of Faith. How the Ministers 


Third Rule of our Faith. 


I. — That we need some other rule besides the "Word of 

God. [Part of XLIV. ; Annecy autograph.] . 149 
XL — That the Church is an infallible guide for our faith. 
That the true Church is visible. Definition of the 
Church. [Annecy autograph; part of XLVIL] . 157 
III. — The Catholic Church is one. Mark the first. It is 
tinder one visible head, that of the protestants is 
not. [Part of XLVIII., XXXV.] . . . .161 

xxxvi Cojiteitts, 


IV. — Unity of the Church [continued). Of the unity of the 

Church in doctrine and belief. The true Church 

must be one in its doctrine. The Catholic Church 

is united in belief, the so-called reformed church 

is not. [XLIX.] 170 

V. — Of the sanctity of the Church : second mark. [L.] . 176 
VI. —Second mark {continued). The true Church ought to 

be resplendent in miracles. [LIII.] . . -177 
VII. — Sanctity of the Church [continued). The Catholic 
Church is accompanied with miracles, the pre- 
tended is not. [LIV.] 180 

VIII. — Sanctity of the Church {continued). The spirit of 
prophecy ought to be in the true Church. The 
Catholic Church has the spirit of prophecy, the 

pretended has it not. [LV.] 188 

IX. — Sanctity of the Church {continued). The true Church 
must practice the perfection of the Christian life. 

[LVL] 190 

X. — Sanctity of the Church {continued). The perfection 
of the evangelic life is practised in our Church ; 
in the pretended it is despised and given up. 

[LVII.] 199 

XI.— Of the universality or catholicity of the Church: 

third mark. [LVIII.] 203 

XIL — Catholicity of the Church {conti7iued). The true 

Church must be ancient. The Catholic Church is 

most ancient, the pretended quite new. [LIX.] . 205 

XIII.— Catholicity of the Church {continued). The true 

Church must be perpetual. Ours is perpetual, the 

pretended is not. [LX.] 208 

XIV.— Catholicity of the Church {continued). The true 
Church ought to be universal in place and per- 
sons. The Catholic Church is thus universal, the 

pretended is not. [LXI,] 210 

XV.— Catholicity of the Church {continued). The true 
Church must be fruitful. The Catholic Church is 
fruitful, the pretended barren. [LXIIL] . .213 
XVI.— That the Church is Apostolic : fourth mark. [LXI V.] 216 

Contents. xxxvii 


That the Ministeks have Violated the Authority of 
Councils, the Fourth Rule of our Faith. 


I. —Of the qualities of a true Council. [Annecy autog.] . 217 
II. — How holy and sacred is the authority of universal 

Councils. [Ann.] 223 

III. — How the ministers have despised and violated the 
authority of Councils. [Ann., part of XLIV. ; 
XLV.] 227 


That the Ministers have Violated the Authority of 
the Ancient Fathers of the Church, Fifth Rule of 
our Faith. 


I. — The authority of the ancient Fathers is venerable. 

[Part of XL VI.] 234 


The Authority of the Pope, the Sixth Rule of our 



I. — First and second proofs. Of the first promise made 
to S. Peter : Upon this rock I ivill build my 
Church. [XXX.] 237 

II. — Resolution of a difficulty. [XXXI.] .... 244 

III. — Third proof. Of the second promise made to S. 
Peter : And I ivill give thee the keys of the king- 
dom of heaven. [XXXII.] 249 

IV. — Fourth proof. Of the third promise made to S. Peter : 

I have prayed for thee, k,Q. [XXXIV.] . . 257 
V. — Fifth proof. The fulfilment of these promises : Feed 

my sheep. [XXXIII.] 259 

VI. — Sixth proof. From the order in which the Evange- 
lists name the Apostles. [XLI.] .... 265 

xxxviii Contents. 


VII. — Seventh proof. Of some other marks which are 
scattered throughout the Scriptures of the primacy 

of S. Peter. [XLII.] 269 

VIIL— Testimonies of the Church to this fact. [XLIII.] . 273 
IX, — That S. Peter has had successors in the vicar-general- 
ship of Our Lord. The conditions required for 
succeeiUng him. [XXXVI. ] .... 276 

X. — That the Bisliop of Rome is true successor of S. Peter 

and head of the militant Church. [XXXVII.] . 280 
XI. — Short description of the life of S. Peter, and of the 

institution of his first successors. [XXXVIII.] . 285 
XII. — Confirmation of all the above by the titles Avhich 

antiquity has given to the Pope. [XXXIX.] . 290 
XIII. — In how great esteem the authority of tlie Pope ought 

to be held. [XL. ; Annecy autograph] . . . 295 
XIV. — How the ministers have violated this authority. 

[Ann. ; part of XLVII.] . . . . .305 

Miracles : The Seventh Rule of Faith. 

I. —How important miracles are for confirming our faith. 

[LL ; part of LIL] 312 

I[. How greatly the ministers have violated the faith due 

to the testimony of miracles. [Part of LIL ; ncAv 
Annecy autograph.] 317 

Harmony of Faith and Reason : Eighth Rule of Faith. 


L — In what sense reason and experience are a rule of 

right believing. [New Annecy autograph.] . . 326 

II.— That the teaching of the pretended reformers contra- 
dicts reason. [LXV. ; new Annecy autograph.] . 329 

III._That the analogy of the faith cannot serve as a 
rule to the ministers to establish their doctrine. 
[LXVL ; part of XLVL] ... ^ . 333 

IV._Conclusion of the whole of this second part by a 
short enumeration of many excellences which are 
in the Catholic doctrine as compared with the 
opinion of the heretics of our age. [LXVIL] . 341 

Contents^ xxxix 



Introduction. [LXVIIL] ....,,. 345 



I. — Of the name of Sacrament. [LXIX.]. , . . 349 

II. — Of the form of the Sacraments. [LXX.] . . . 350 
III. — Of the intention required in the ration of the 

Sacraments. [LXXI.] ...,,, 357 



Introduction. [LXXIL] • • 363 

I.— Of the name of Purgatory. [LXXIIL] . . .365 
II. — Of those who have denied Purgatory, and of the 

means of proving it. [LXXIV.] .... 366 
III. — Of some passages of the Scripture in which mention 
is made of purgation after this life, and of a 
time and a place for it. [Part of LXXV.] . . 369 
IV. — Of another passage out of the New Testament to this 

effect. [Part of LXXV.] 372 

V. — Of some other passages by which prayer, alms-deeds, 
and holy actions for the departed are authorised. 

[LXXVL] 376 

VI. — Of certain other i)laces of Scripture by which we 
prove that some sins can be pardoned in the other 

world. [LXXVIL] 382 

VII. — Of some other places fiom which, by various con- 
sequences, is deduced the truth of Purgatory 

xl Contents, 


VIII. — Of the Councils which ha^-e received Purgatory as an 

article of faith. [LXXIX.] 388 

IX. — Of the testimony of the ancient Fathers to the truth 

ofPurgator}^ [Part of LXXX.] . . . .390 
X, — Of two principal reasons, and of the testimonies of 

outsiders in favour of Purgatory. [Part of LXXX.] 392 


Gentlemen, having prosecuted for some space of time 
the preaching of the Word of God in your town, 
without obtaining a hearing from your people save 
rarely, casually, and stealthily, — wishing to leave 
nothing undone on my part, I have set myself to put 
into writing some principal reasons, chosen for the 
most part from the sermons and instructions which I 
have hitherto addressed to you by word of mouth, in 
defence of the faith of the Church. I should indeed 
have wished to be heard, as the accusers have been ; 
for words in the mouth are living, on paper dead. 
" The living voice," says S. Jerome, " has a certain 
indescribable secret strength, and the heart is far more 
surely reached by the spoken word than by writing." f 
This it is which made the glorious Apostle S. Paul 
say in the Scripture : How shall they believe him of 
whom they have not heard ? And how shall they hear 
without a preacher ? . . . Faith then cometh by hearing, 
and hearing by the word of Christ.X My best chance, 
then, would have been to be heard, in lack of which 
this writing will not be without good results, (i.) 
It will carry to your houses what you will not receive 

* Addressed to the inhabitants of Thonon. [Tr.] 
t Ep. ad Paulinum, J Rom. x. 


2 The Catholic Controversy, 

at our house, at our meetings. (2.) It will satisfy 
those who, as sole answer to the arguments I bring 
forward, say that they would like to see them laid 
before some minister, and who believe that the mere 
presence of the adversary would make them tremble, 
grow pale, and faint away, taking from them all 
strength; now they can be laid before them. (3.) 
Writing can be better handled ; it gives more leisure 
for consideration than the voice does; it can be 
pondered more profoundly. (4.) It will be seen that 
I deny a thousand impieties which are attributed to 
Catholics ; this is not in order to escape from the diffi- 
culty, as some have said, but to follow the holy inten- 
tion of the Church; for I write in everybody's sight, 
and under the censorship of superiors, being assured 
that, while people will find herein plenty of ignorance, 
they will not find, God helping, any irreligion or any 
opposition to the doctrines of the Roman Church. 

I must, however, protest, for the relief of my con- 
science, that all these considerations would never have 
made me take the resolution of writing. It is a trade 
which requires apprenticeship, and belongs to learned 
and more cultivated minds. To write well, one must 
know extremely well ; mediocre wits must content 
themselves with speech, wherein gesture, voice, play 
of feature, brighten the word. Mine, which is of the 
less, or, to say the downright truth, of the lowest 
degree of mediocrity, is not made to succeed in this 
exercise ; and indeed I should not have thought of 
it, if a grave and judicious gentleman had not invited 
and encouraged me to do it : afterwards several of my 
chief friends approved of it, whose opinion I so highly 
value that my own has no belief from me save in default 

Author s Introdtcctton. 3 

of other. I have then put down here some principal 
reasons of the Catholic faith, which clearly prove that 
all are in fault who remain separated from the Catholic, 
Apostolic, and Roman Church. And I address and offer 
it to you with good heart, hoping that the causes which 
keep you from hearing me will not have power to 
hinder you from reading what I write. Meanwhile, I 
assure you, that you will never read a writing which 
shall be given you by any man more devoted to your 
spiritual service than I am ; and I can truly say that I 
shall never receive a command with more hearty accept- 
ance, than I did that which Monseigneur, our most 
reverend Bishop, gave me, when he ordered me, accord- 
ing to the holy desire of His Highness, whose letter he 
put into my hand, to come here and bring you the holy 
Word of God. Nor did I think that I could ever do 
you a greater service. And in fact I thought that 
as you will receive no other law for your belief than 
that interpretation of the Scripture which seems to 
you the best, you would hear also the interpretation 
which I should bring, viz., that given by the Apostolic 
Roman Church, which hitherto you have not had 
except perverted and quite disfigured and adulterated 
by the enemy, who well knew that had you seen it in 
its purity, never would you have abandoned it. The 
time is evil ; the Gospel of Peace has hard striving 
to get heard amid so many rumours of war. Still I 
lose not courage ; fruits a little late in coming pre- 
serve better than the forward ones. I trust that if 
Our Lord but once cry in your ears his holy Ephpheta, 
this slowness will result in much the greater sureness. 
Take then, gentlemen, in good part, this present which 
I make you, and read my reasons attentively. The 

4 The Catholic Controversy, 

hand of God is not withered nor shortened, and readily 
shows its power in feeble and low things. If you 
have with so much promptitude heard one of the 
parties, have yet patience to hear the other. Then 
take, I charge you on the part of G-od, take time and 
leisure to calm your understanding, and pray God to 
assist you with his Holy Spirit in a question of such 
great importance, in order that he may address you 
unto salvation. But above all I beg you never to let 
other passion enter your spirits than the passion of 
Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, by which we all 
have been redeemed and shall be saved, unless we 
are wanting on our part; since he desires that all 
men should he saved and should come to the knowledge 
of his truth* I beseech his sacred Majesty that he 
would deign to help me and you in this aJBPair, as he 
deigned to regard the glorious Apostle S. Paul [whose] 
conversion [we celebrate] to-day. 

All comes back to the saying of the prophet. De- 
struction is thy own, Israel ! t Our Lord was the 
true Saviour who came to enlighten every man and to 
be a light unto the revelation of the Gentiles, and the 
glory of Israel ; whereas Israel takes hereby occasion 
of ignominy. Is not this a great misfortune ? And 
when it is said that he is set for the ruin of many, 
this must be understood as to the actual event, not as 
to the intention of the divine Majesty. As the Tree 
of the knowledge of good and evil had no virtue to 
teach Adam either good or evil, though the event gave 
it this name, because Adam by taking the fruit ex- 
perienced the evil which his disobedience caused him. 
The Son of God came for peace and benediction, and 
* I Tim. li. 4. t Osee xiiL 9. 

Author s Introduetton. 5 

not for evil to meu ; unless some madman would dare 
to cast up to our Lord his holy Word : Woe to that 
man through whom scandal cometh, * and would condemn 
him by his own law to have a millstone tied about 
his neck and be cast into the depths of the sea. Let 
us then confess that not one of us men is scandalised 
save by his own fault. This is what I undertake to 
prove by force of argument. my God, my Saviour, 
purify my spirit ; make this your word distil sweetly 
into the hearts of my readers, as a sacred dew, to cool 
the ardour of the passions which they may have ; 
and they shall see how true, in you, and in the Church 
your Spouse, is that which you have said. 

It was, I think, that great facility which men find 
for taking scandal, which made Our Lord say that 
scandals needs must come,^ or, as S. Matthew says, 
Woe to the world because of scandals; J for if men take 
occasion of their harm from the sovereign good itself, 
how could there not be scandals in a world where 
there are so many evils ? § 

Now there are three sorts of scandals, and all three 
very evil in their nature, but unequally so. There is 
a scandal which our learned theologians call active. 
And this is a bad action which gives to another an 
occasion of wrong-doing, and the person who does this 
action is justly called scandalous. The two other sorts 
of scandal are called passive scandals, some of them^ 
passive scandals ah extrinseco, others ab intrinseco. For 
of persons who are scandalised, some are so by the bad 
actions of another, and receive the active scandal, let- 
ting their wills be affected by the scandal ; but some 

* Matt, xviii. 7. f Luke xvii. i. X xviii, 7. 

§ See, iu note to Preface, a fuller treatment of the subject of scandal. 

6 The Catholic Controversy. 

are so by their own malice, and, having otherwise no 
occasion, build and fabricate them in their own brain, 
and scandalise themselves with a scandal which is all 
of their own making. He who scandalises another 
fails in charity towards his neighbour, he who scan- 
dalises himself fails in charity towards himself, and he 
who is scandalised by another is wanting in strength 
and firmness. The first is scandalous, the second 
scandalous and scandalised, the third scandalised only. 
The first scandal is called datum, given, the second 
acceptum^ taken, the third rece'ptum, received. The 
first passes the third in evil, and the second so much 
passes the first that it contains first and second, being 
active and passive both together, as the murdering and 
destroying oneself is a cruelty more against nature 
than the killing another. All these kinds of scandal 
abound in the world, and one sees nothing so plentiful 
as scandal : it is the principal trade of the devil ; 
whence Our Lord said, Woe to the world because of 
scandals. But scandal taken without occasion holds 
the chief place by every right, [being] the most frequent, 
the most dangerous, and the most injurious. 

And it is of this alone that Our Lord is the object 
in souls which are given up as a prey to iniquity. 
But a little patience : Our Lord cannot be scandalous, 
for all in him is sovereignly good ; nor scandalised, 
for he is sovereignly powerful and wise; — how then 
can it happen that one should be scandalised in him, 
and that he should be set for the ruin of many ? It 
would be a horrible blasphemy to attribute our evil 
to his Majesty. He wishes that every one should be 
saved and should come to the knowledge of his truth. 
He would have no one perish. Our destruction is 

Author s Introduction, 7 

from ourselves, and our hel'p from his divine good- 
ness.* Our Lord then does not scandalise us, nor 
does his holy Word, but we are scandalised in him, 
which is the proper way of speaking in this point, as 
himself teaches, saying : Blessed is he that shall not he 
scandalised in me.t And when it is said that he has 
been set for the ruin of many, we must find this 
verified in the event, which was that many were 
ruined on account of him, not in the intention of the 
supreme goodness, which had only sent him as a light 
for the revelation of the Gentiles and for the glory of 
Israel. But if there are men who would say the 
contrary, they have nothing left [as I have said] but 
to curse their Saviour with his own words : Woe t6 
him by whom scandal cometh. 

I beseech you, let us look in ourselves for the cause 
of our vices and sins. Our will is the only source of 
them. Our mother Eve indeed tried to throw the 
blame on the serpent, and her husband to throw it on 
her, but the excuse was not valid. They would have 
done better to say the honest peccavi, as David did, 
whose sin was immediately forgiven. 

I have said all this, gentlemen, to make known to 
you whence comes this great dissension of wills in 
matter of religion, which we see amongst those who in 
their mouths make profession of Christianity. This is 
the principal and sovereign scandal of the world, and, 
in comparison with the others, it alone deserves the 
name of scandal, and it seems to be almost exactly the 
same thing when Our Lord says it is necessary that 

* The Saint adds in margin : This is the will of God, your sanctifica' 
tion. I Thess. iv. 3. [Tr.] 
•*" Matt. xi. 6, 

8 The Catholic Controversy, 

scandals come, and St. Paul says that there must he 
hei^esies ; * for this scandal changes with time, and, like 
a violent movement, gradually grows weaker in its evil- 
ness. In those Christians who begin the division and 
this civil war, heresy is a scandal simply taken, passive 
ah intrinseco, and there is no evil in the heresiarch save 
such as is entirely in his own will; no one has part 
in this but himself. The scandal of the first whom he 
seduces already begins to be divided ; — but unequally, 
for the heresiarch has his share therein on account of 
his solicitation, the seduced have a share as much the 
greater as they have had less occasion of following 
him. Their heresy having taken root, those who are 
born of heretical parents among the heretics have ever 
less share in the fault : still neither these nor those 
come to be without considerable fault of their own, 
and particularly persons of this age, who are almost 
all in purely passive scandal. For the Scripture which 
they handle, the neighbourhood of true Christians, the 
marks which they see in the true Church, take from 
them all proper excuse ; so that the Church from whom 
they are separated can put before them the words of 
her Lord : Search the Scripticres, for you think in them 
to have life everlasting : and the same are they that give 
testimony of meA The works that I do in the name of 
my Father, they give testimony of me.^ 

Now I have said that their scandal is purely or 
almost purely passive. For it is well known that the 
occasion they pretend to have for their division and 
departure is the error, the ignorance, the idolatry, 
which they aver to be in the Church they have aban- 
doned, while it is a thing perfectly certain that the 

* I Cor. xi. 19. t Johu v. 39. J lb. x. 25. 

Author s Introduction, 9 

Church in her general body cannot be scandalous, or 
scandalised, being like her Lord, who communicates to 
her by grace and particular assistance what is proper to 
him by nature : for being her Head he guides her 
feet in the right way. The Church is his mystical 
body, and therefore he takes as his own the honour 
and the dishonour that are given to her ; so it cannot 
be said that she gives, takes, or receives any scandal. 
Those then who are scandalised in her do all the wrong 
and have all the fault : their scandal has no other 
subject than their own malice, which keeps ever tick- 
ling them to make them laugh in their iniquities. 

See then what I intend to show in this little treatise. 
I have no other aim than to make you see, gentlemen, 
that this Susanna is wrongfully accused, and that she 
is justified in lamenting over all those who have turned 
aside from her commandments in the words of her 
Spouse : They ham hated me without cause* 

This I will do in two ways : (i.) ^7 certain general 
reasons ; (2.) by particular examples which I will bring 
forward of the principal difficulties, by way of illus- 
tration. All that so many learned men have written 
tends and returns to this, but not in a straight line. 
For each one proposes a particular path to follow. I 
will try to reduce all the lines of my argument to this 
point as to the centre as exactly as I can. The first 
part will serve almost equally for all sorts of heretics : 
the second will be addressed rather to those whose 
reunion we have the strongest duty to effect. So many 
great personages have written in our age, that their 
posterity have scarcely anything more to say, but have 
only to consider, learn, imitate, admire. I will there- 

* John XV. 25. 

lo The Catholic Controversy. 

fore say nothing new and would not wish to do so. 
All is ancient, and there is almost nothing of mine 
beyond the needle and thread : the rest I have only 
had to unpick and sew again in my own way, with 
this warning of Vincent of Lerins : " Teach, however, 
what thou hast learnt ; that whilst thou sayest things 
in a new way thou say not new things." ^ 

This treatise will seem perhaps to some a little too 
meagre : this does not come from my stinginess but 
from my poverty. My memory has very little stored 
up, and is kept going only from day to day; and I 
have but very few books here with which I can enrich 
myself. But still receive favourably, I beg you, 
gentlemen of Thonon, this work, and though you have 
seen many better made and richer, still give some little 
of your attention to this, which will perhaps be more 
adapted to your taste than the others are ; for its air 
is entirely Savoyard, and one of the most profitable 
prescriptions, and the last remedy, is a return to one's 
natal air. If this profit you not, you shall try others 
more pure and more invigorating, for there are, thank 
God, of all sorts in this country. I am about there- 
fore to begin, in the name of God, whom I most 
humbly beseech to make his holy Word distil sweetly 
as a refreshing dew into your heart. And I beg you, 
gentlemen, and those who read this, to remember the 
words of S. Paul: Let all hitterness and anger ^ and 
indignation, and clamour^ and blasphemy he taken away 
from you, with all malice. Ameoi.f 

* Comm. 1"«^- cap. xxxvii. + Eph. iv. 31. 


AIM 6 6 ( n» 



First, then, your ministers had not the conditions 
required for the position which they sought to 
maintain, and the enterprise which they undertook. 
"Wherefore they are inexcusable; and you yourselves 
also, who knew and still know or ought to know, this 
defect in them, have done very wrong in receiving 
them under such colours. The office they claimed 
was that of ambassadors of Jesus Christ Our Lord ; 
the affair they undertook was to declare a formal 
divorce between Our Lord and the ancient Church his 
Spouse ; to arrange and conclude by words of present 
consent, as lawful procurators, a second and new 
marriage with this young madam, of better grace, said 
they, and more seemly than the other. For in effect, 
to stand up as preacher of God's Word and pastor 
of souls, — what is it but to call oneself ambassador 

1 2 The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

and legate of Our Lord, according to that of the 
Apostle : * We art therefore ambassadors for Christ / 
And to say that the whole of Christendom has failed, 
that the whole Church has erred, and all truth dis- 
appeared, — what is this but to say that Our Lord has 
abandoned his Church, has broken the sacred tie of 
marriage he had contracted with her ? And to put 
forward a new Church, — is it not to attempt to thrust 
upon this sacred and holy Husband a second wife ? 
This is what the ministers of the pretended church 
have undertaken ; this is what they boast of having 
done ; this has been the aim of their discourses, their 
designs, their writings. But what an injustice have 
you not committed in believing them ? How did you 
come to take their word so simply ? How did you 
so lightly give them credit ? 

To be legates and ambassadors they should have 
been sent, they should have had letters of credit from 
him whom they boasted of being sent by. The affairs 
were of the greatest importance, for there was question 
of disturbing the whole Church. The persons who 
undertook them were extraordinaries, of mean quality, 
and private persons ; while the ordinary pastors were 
men of mark, and of most ancient and acknowledged 
reputation, who contradicted them and protested that 
these extraordinaries had no charge nor commandment 
of the Master. Tell me, what business had you to 
hear them and believe them without having any 
assurance of their commission and of the approval of 
Our Lord, whose legates they called themselves ? In 
a word, you have no justification for having quitted 
that ancient Church in which you were baptized, on the 

* 2 Cor. V. 20. 

CHAP. II.] Mission. 13 

faith of preachers who had no legitimate mission from 
the Master. 

Now you cannot be ignorant that they neither had, 
nor have, in any way at all, this mission. For if Our 
Lord had sent them, it would have been either medi- 
ately or immediately. We say mission is given medi- 
ately when we are sent by one who has from God the 
power of sending, according to the order which he has 
appointed in his Church ; and such was the mission 
of S. Denis into France by Clement and of Timothy 
by S. Paul. Immediate mission is when God himself 
commands and gives a charge, without the interposition 
of the ordinary authority which he has placed in the 
prelates and pastors of the Church : as S. Peter and 
the Apostles were sent, receiving from Our Lord's 
own mouth this commandment : Go ye into the, whole 
worlds and 'preach the Gospel to every creature ; * and 
as Moses received his mission to Pharao and to the 
people of Israel. But neither in the one nor in the 
other way have your ministers any mission. How 
then have they undertaken to preach ? How shall they 
preach, says the Apostle, unless they he sent ? t 



And first, as to ordinary and mediate mission, they 
have none whatever. For what they can put forward 
is either that they are sent by the people and secular 

* Mark xvi. 15. t Rom. x. 15. 

14 The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

princes, or else that they are sent by the imposition 
of the hands of the bishops who made them priests, a 
dignity to which at last they must have recourse, 
although they despise it altogether and everywhere. 

Now, if they say that the secular magistrates and 
people have sent them, they will have two proofs to give 
which they never can give, the one that the seculars have 
done it, the other that they could do it, for we deny 
both the fact and the right (factum et jus faciendi). 

And that they could not do it the reason is absolute. 
For (i.) they will never find that the people and 
secular magistrates had the power to establish and 
institute bishops in the Church.^ They will indeed 
perhaps find that the people have given testimony and 
assisted at ordinations ; yea, perhaps, that the choice 
has been given to them, like that of the deacons, as 
S. Luke tells us (Acts vi.), which the whole body 
of the faithful made ; but they will never show that 
the people or secular princes have authority to give 
mission or to appoint pastors. How then do they 
allege a mission by people or princes, which has no 
foundation in the Scripture ? (2.) On the contrary, 
we bring forward the express practice of the whole 
Church, which from all time has been to ordain the 
pastors by the imposition of the hands of the other 
pastors and bishops. Thus was Timothy ordained; 
and the seven deacons themselves, though proposed 
by the Christian people, were ordained by the imposi- 

* The Saint in a detached note elsewhere draws particular attention 
to the necessity of mission shown in the fact that Jeroboam is rebuked 
not for dividing the kingdom but for dividing the Church, and making 
temples in the high places, and priests of the lowest of the people, who 
were not sons of Levi. (3 Kings xii. 31.) 

CHAP. II.] Mission. 15 

tion of the Apostles' hands. Thus have the Apostles 
appointed in their Constitutions ; and the great Council 
of Nice (which methinks one will not despise) and that 
of Carthage — the second, and then immediately the 
third, and the fourth, at which S. Augustine assisted. 
If then they have been sent by the laity, they are not 
sent in Apostolic fashion, nor legitimately, and their 
mission is null. (3.) In fact, the laity have no mis- 
sion, and how then shall they give it ? How shall 
they communicate the authority which they have not ? 
And therefore S. Paul, speaking of the priesthood and 
pastoral order, says : Neither doth any man talce the 
honour to himself hut he that is called hy God, as Aaron 
was (Heb. x. 4). Now Aaron was consecrated and 
ordained by the hands of Moses, who was a priest 
himself, according to the holy word of David (Ps. 
xcviii. 7), Moses and Aaron among his priests and 
Samuel among those who call upon his name ; and, as 
is indicated in Exodus (xxviii. i) in this word, Take 
unto thee also Aaro7i thy brother, with his sons . . . that 
they may minister to me in the priest's office; with 
which agree a great army of our Ancients. Whoever 
then would assert his mission must not assert it 
as being from the people nor from secular princes. 
For Aaron was not called in that way, and we cannot 
be called otherwise than he was. (4.) Finally, that 
which is less is blessed by the better, as S. Paul says 
(Heb. vii. 7). The people then cannot send the 
pastors ; for the pastors are greater than the people, 
and mission is not given without blessing."" For after 
this magnificent mission the people remain sheep, and 

* Amen, Amen, I say to you; the servant is not greater than his Lord^ 
neither is an A;posUe greater than he that sent him (John xiii. i6). 

1 6 The Catholic Controversy, [part l 

the shepherd remains shepherd. (5.) I do not insist 
here, as I will prove it hereafter, that the Church is 
monarchical, and that therefore the right of sending 
belongs to the chief pastor, not to the people. I omit 
the disorder which would arise if the people sent ; for 
they could not send to one another, one people having 
no authority over the other ; — and what free play would 
this give to all sorts of heresies and fancies ? It is 
necessary then that the sheep should receive the shepherd 
from elsewhere, and should not give him to themselves.'''^ 
The people therefore were not able to give legiti- 
mate mission or commission to these new ambassadors. 
But I say further that even if they could they did not. 
For this people was of the true Church or not: if 
it was of the true Church why did Luther take it 
therefrom ? Would it really have called him in order 
to be taken out of its place and of the Church? 
And if it were not of the true Church, how could 
it have the right of mission and of vocation ? — out- 
side the true Church there cannot be such authority. 
If they say this people was not Catholic, what was 
it then ? It was not Lutheran ; for we all know 
that when Luther began to preach in Germany there 
were no Lutherans, and it was he who was their 
origin. Since then such a people did not belong to 
the true Church, how could it give mission for true 
preaching ? They have then no vocation from that 
source, unless they have recourse to the invisible 
mission received from the principalities and powers of 
the world of this darkness, and the spiritual wicked- 

* Here may be added a detached note of the Saint's. •' Acts xv. 24 : 
Forasmuch as we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled 
you with words, to whom we gave no commands. If they had given 
charge, much less would they themselves teach without charge." 

CHAP. II.] Mission. 17 

nesses against which good Catholics have always waged 
war. Many therefore of our age, seeing the road cut off 
on that side, have betaken themselves to the other, and 
say that the first masters and reformers, — Luther, 
Bucer, CEcolampadius, — were sent by the bishops who 
made them priests ; then they sent their followers, 
and so they would go on to blend their rights with 
those of the Apostles. 

In good sooth it is to speak frankly {'parler 
Frangais) and plainly indeed, thus to confess that 
mission can only have passed to their ministers from 
the Apostles by the succession of our bishops and 
the imposition of their hands. Of course the case is 
really so : one cannot give this mission so high a 
fall that from the Apostles it should leap into the 
hands of the preachers of now-a-days without having 
touched any of our ancients and foregoers : it would 
have required a very long speaking-tube (sarhacane) 
in the mouth of the first founders of the Church to 
call Luther and the rest without being overheard by 
any of those who were between : or else, as Calvin 
says on another occasion, not much to the point, 
these must have had very long ears. It must have 
been kept sound indeed, if these were to find it. We 
agree then that missiou was possessed by our bishops, 
and particularly by their head, the Eoman Bishop. But 
we formally deny that your ministers have had any 
communication of it, to preach what they have 
preached. Because (i.) they preach things contrary to 
the Church in which they have been ordained priests ; 
therefore either they err or the Church which has sent 
them errs; — and consequently either their church is 
false or the one from which they have taken mission. 

1 8 The Catholic Controversy. [part i. 

If it be that from which they have taken mission, 
their mission is false, for from a false Church there 
cannot spring a true mission. Whichever way it be, 
they had no mission to preach what they preached, 
because, if the Church in which they have been 
ordained were true, they are heretics for having left it, 
and for having preached against its belief, and if it 
A^ere not true it could not give them mission. (2.) 
Besides, though they had had mission in the Eoman 
Church, they had none to leave it, and withdraw her 
children from her obedience. Truly the commissioner 
must not exceed the limits of his commission, or his 
act is null. (3.) Luther, QEcolampadius, and Calvin 
were not bishops : how then could they communicate 
any mission to their successors on the part of the 
Eoman Church, which protests always and everywhere 
that it is only the bishops who can send, and that this 
belongs in no way to simple priests ? In which even 
S. Jerome has placed the difference between the simple 
priest and the bishop, in the Epistle to Evagrius, and 
S. Augustine ^^ and Epiphanius t reckon Aerius with 
heretics because he held the contrary. 



These reasons are so strong that the most solid of 

your party have taken ground elsewhere than in the 

ordinary mission, and have said that they were sent 

* De Ecer. 53. t Eoeres. 75. 

CHAP. III.] Mission, 19 

extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission 
had been ruined and abolished, with the true Church 
itself, under the tyranny of Antichrist. This is their 
most safe refuge, which, since it is common to all sorts 
of heretics, is worth attacking in good earnest and 
overthrowing completely. Let us then place our 
argument in order, to see if we can force this their 
last barricade. 

First, I say then that no one should allege an 
extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles : 
for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of 
extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof ? 
Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries ? 
Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius — could they not 
be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing 
the same oath ? 

Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he 
brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. 
Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the 
people of Israel. He wished to know his name who 
sent him ; when he had learnt the admirable name of 
God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission : 
God so far found this request good that he gave him 
the grace of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, which 
were, so to speak, three attestations in three different 
languages, of the charge which he gave him, in order 
that any one who did not understand one might 
understand another. If then they allege extraordinary 
mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, 
otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. In 
truth Moses clearly shows the necessity of this proof 
for him who would speak extraordinarily : for having 
to beg from God the gift of eloquence, he only asks it 

20 The Catholic Controversy. [part i. 

after having the power of miracles ; showing that it is 
more necessary to have authority to speak than to 
have readiness in speaking. 

The mission of S. John Baptist, though it was not 
altogether extraordinary, — was it not authenticated 
by his conception, his nativity, and even by that 
miraculous life of his, to which our Lord gave such 
excellent testimony ? But as to the Apostles, — who 
does not know the miracles they did and the great 
number of them ? Their handkerchiefs, their shadow, 
served for the prompt healing of the sick and driving 
away of the devils : hy the hands of the apostles many 
signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts 
xix. V.) ; and that this was in confirmation of their 
preaching S. Mark declares quite explicitly in the last 
words of his Gospel, and S. Paul to the Hebrews (ii. 
4). How then shall those who in our age would 
allege an extraordinary mission excuse and relieve 
themselves of this proof of their mission ? What 
privilege have they greater than an Apostolic, a 
Mosaic ? What shall I say more. If our sovereign 
Master, consubstantial with the Father, having a 
mission so authentic that it comprises the communica- 
tion of the same essence, if he himself, I say, who is the 
living source of all Ecclesiastical mission, has not 
chosen to dispense himself from this proof of miracles, 
what reason is there that these new ministers should 
be believed on their mere word ? Our Lord very often 
alleges his mission to give credit to his words : — As 
my Father hath sent me I also send you (John xx. 
21); My doctrine is not mine, hut of him that sent me 
(ibid. vii. 1 6) ; You doth knoiv me, and you know tvhence 
I am; and I am not come of myself (ibid. 28). But 

OHAP. III.] Mission, 21 

also, to give authority to his mission, he brings forward 
his miracles, and attests that if he had not done among 
the Jews works which no other man had done, they 
would not have sinned in not believing him. And else- 
where he says to them : Do you not believe that I am 
in the Father and the Father in me ? Otherwise believe 
for the luorhs themselves (ibid. xiv. 11, 12). He then who 
would be so rash as to boast of extraordinary mission 
without immediately producing miracles, deserves to 
be taken for an impostor. Now it is a fact that neither 
the first nor the last ministers have worked a single 
miracle : therefore they have no extraordinary mission. 
Let us proceed. 

I say, in the second place, that never must an ex- 
traordinary mission be received when disowned by the 
ordinary authority which is in the Church of Our Lord. 
For, (i.) we are obliged to obey our ordinary pastors 
under pain of being heathens and publicans (Matt, 
xviii. 17) : — how then can we place ourselves under 
other discipline than theirs ? Extraordinaries would 
come in vain, since we should be obliged to refuse to 
listen to them, in the case that they were, as I have 
said, disowned by the ordinaries. (2.) God is not the 
author of dissension, but of union and peace (l Cor. 
xiv. 33), principally amongst his disciples and Church 
ministers ; as Our Lord clearly shows in the holy 
prayer he made to his Father in the last days of his 
mortal life (John xvii.) 

How then should he authorise two sorts of pastors, 
the one extraordinary, the other ordinary ? As to the 
ordinary — it certainly is authorised, and as to the 
extraordinary we are supposing it to be; there would 
then be two different churches, which is contrary to 

2 2 The Catholic Controversy. [part i. 

the most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one 
sole spouse, one sole dove, one sole perfect one (Cant, 
vi.) And how could that be a united flock which 
should be led by two shepherds, unknown to each 
other, into different pastures, with different calls 
and folds, and each of them expecting to have the 
whole. Thus would it be with the Church under a 
variety of pastors ordinary and extraordinary, dragged 
hither and thither into various sects. Or is Our Lord 
divided (i Cor. i. 13), either in himself or in his 
body, which is the Church ? — no, in good truth. On 
the contrary, there is but one Lord, who has composed 
his mystic body with a goodly variety of members, a 
body compacted and fitly joined together hy ivliat every 
joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure 
of every part (Eph. iv. 16). Therefore to try to make in 
the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary 
members is to ruin and destroy it. We must then 
return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation 
is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the 
ordinary. (3.) And in effect where will you ever show 
me a legitimate extraordinary vocation which has not 
been received by the ordinary authority. S. Paul was 
extraordinarily called, — but was he not approved and 
authorised by the ordinary once and again ? (Acts ix. 
xiii.) And the mission received from the ordinary 
authority is called a mission by the Holy Spirit (ibid, 
xiii. 4). The mission of S. John Baptist cannot pro- 
perly be called extraordinary, because he taught nothing 
contrary to the Mosaic Church, and because he was 
of the priestly race. All the same, his doctrine being 
unusual was approved by the ordinary teaching office 
of the Jewish Church in the high embassy which was 

CHAP. III.] Mission. 23 

sent to him by the priests and Levites (John i. 19), 
the tenor of which implies the great esteem and re- 
putation in which he was with them ; and the very 
Pharisees who were seated on the chair of Moses, — 
did they not come to communicate in his baptism 
quite openly and unhesitatingly ? This truly was to 
receive his mission in good earnest. Did not Our 
Lord, who was the Master, will to be received by 
Simeon, who was a priest, as appears from his blessing 
Our Lady and Joseph ; by Zachary the priest ; and by 
S. John ? And for his passion, which was the prin- 
cipal fulfilment of his mission, — did he not will to 
have the prophetic testimony of him who was High 
Piiest at that time. And this is what S. Paul teaches 
when he will have no man to take the, pastoral 
honour to himself, hut he, that is called ly God, as 
Aaron was (Heb. v. 4). For the vocation of Aaron 
was made by the ordinary, Moses, so that it was not 
God who placed his holy word in the mouth of Aaron 
immediately, but Moses, whom God commanded to do 
it : Speak to him, and put my ivords in his mouth ; and 
I will he in thy mouth, and in his mouth (Ex. iv. 15). 
And if we consider the words of S. Paul, we shall 
further learn that the vocation of pastors and Church 
rulers must be made visibly ; and so with Our Lord 
and Master; — who, being sovereign pontiff, and pastor 
of all the ages, did not glorify himself, that is, did not 
take to himself the honour of his holy priesthood, as S. 
Paul had previously said, hut he who said to him: 
Thou art my Son, this day have I hegotten thee ; and. 
Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Mel- 
chisedech. I beg you to ponder this expression — Jesus 
Christ is a high priest according to the order of Melchise- 

24 The Catholic Controversy. [part i. 

deck. Was he inducted and thrust into this honour 
by himself ? No, he was called thereto. Who called 
him ? His eternal Father. And how ? Immediately 
and at the same time mediately : immediately at his 
Baptism and his Transfiguration, by this voice : This 
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear 
ye him; mediately by the Prophets, and above all by 
David in the places which S. Paul cites to this effect 
from the Psalms : Thou art my Son, this day have 1 
begotten thee : Thou art a priest for ever according to 
the order of Melchisedech. And everywhere the voca- 
tion is externally perceptible : the word in the cloud 
was heard, and in David heard and read ; but S. Paul 
when proving the vocation of Our Lord quotes only 
the passage from David, in which he says Our Lord 
had been glorified by his Father ; thus contenting him- 
self with bringing forward the testimony which was 
perceptible, and given by means of the ordmary Scrip- 
tures and the received Prophets. 

I say, thirdly, that the authority of the extraordinary 
mission never destroys the ordinary, and is never given 
to overthrow it. Witness all the Prophets, who never 
set up altar against altar, never overthrew the priest- 
hood of Aaron, never abolished the constitutions of 
the Synagogue. Witness Our Lord, who declares that 
every kingdom divided against itself shall he brought to 
desolation, and a house upon a house shall fall (Luke xi. 
17). Witness the respect which he paid to the chair 
of Moses, the doctrine of which he would have to be 
observed. And indeed if the extraordinary ought to 
abolish the ordinary, how should we know when, and 
how, and to whom, to give our obedience. No, no ; the 
ordinary is immortal for such time as the Church is 

CHAP. III.] Mission, 25 

here below in the world. The pastors and teachers 
whom he has once given to the Church are to have a 
perpetual succession for the, 'perfection of the saints . . . 
till we all meet in the unity of faith, and of the know- 
ledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the 
measure of the age of the fulness of Christ. That we may 
not now he children, tossed to and fro, and carried aboict 
with every wind of doctrine, in the wickedness of men 
and in their craftiness (Eph. iv.) Such is the strong 
argument which S. Paul uses to prove that if the 
ordinary pastors and doctors had not perpetual suc- 
cession, and were liable to have their authority abro- 
gated by the extraordinary, we should also have but 
an irregular faith and discipline, interrupted at every 
step ; we should be liable to be seduced by men, who 
on every occasion would boast of having an extraor- 
dinary vocation. Thus, like the Gentiles we should walk 
(as he infers afterwards) in the vanity of our mind 
(ibid. 17), each one persuading himself that he felt the 
movement of the Holy Ghost ; of which our age fur- 
nishes so many examples that this is one of the strongest 
proofs that can be brought forward in this connection. 
For if the extraordinary may take away the ordinary 
ministration, to which shall we give the guardianship 
of it — to Calvin or to Luther, to Luther or to Pacio- 
montanus, to Paciomontanus or to Brandratus, to Bran- 
dratus or to Brentius, to Brentius or to the Queen of 
England ? — for each will draw to his or her side this 
pretext of extraordinary mission. 

But the word of Our Lord frees us from all these 
difficulties, who has built his Church on so good a 
foundation and in such wise proportions that the gates 
of hell shall never prevail against it. And if they have 

26 The Catholic Controversy. [part l 

never prevailed nor shall prevail, then the extraor- 
dinary vocation is not necessary to abolish it, for God 
hateth nothing of those things which he has made (Wis. 
xi. 25). How then did they abolish the ordinary 
Church, to make an extraordinary one, since it is he 
who has built the ordinary one, and cemented it with 
his own blood ? 



I HAVE not been able hitherto to find but two objec- 
tions amongst your masters to this reasoning which 
I have just made, one of which is taken from the 
example of Our Lord and the Apostles, the othei 
from the example of the Prophets. 

And as to the first — tell me, I pray, do you think 
it right to place in comparison the vocation of these 
new ministers and that of Our Lord ? Had not Our 
Lord been prophesied as the Messias ? — had not his 
time been determined by Daniel ? — did he do a single 
action which had not been described almost exactly in 
the books of the Prophets, and prefigured in the 
Patriarchs ? He changed the Mosaic law from good 
into better ; — but had not this change been predicted ? 
He consequently changed the Aaronic priesthood into 
that of Melchisedech, far better : is not all this 
according to the ancient testimonies ? Your ministers 

CHAP. IV.] Mission. 27 

have not been prophesied as preachers of the word of 
God, nor the time of their coming, nor a single one of 
their actions. They have made a revolution in the 
Church much greater and bolder than Our Lord made 
in the synagogue ; for they have taken all away, only 
putting back certain shadows : but testimonies to this 
effect have they none. At any rate they should not 
elude their obligation of bringing forward miracles in 
support of such a change, whatever pretext you may 
draw from the Scriptures, since our Lord dispensed not 
himself from this, as I have shown above. But whence 
will they show me that the Church was ever to 
receive another form, or a like reformation to the one 
which our Lord made ? 

And as to the Prophets, I see many persons under 
a delusion. It is supposed that all the vocations of 
the Prophets were extraordinary and immediate. A 
false idea : for there were colleges and congreoations 
of the Prophets approved by the Synagogue, as may 
be gathered from many passages of the Scriptures. 
There were such in Eamatha, in Bethel, in Jericho 
where Eliseus dwelt, on Mount Ephraim, in Samaria ; 
Eliseus himself was anointed by Heli; the vocation 
of Samuel was recognised and approved by the High 
Priest ; and with Samuel the Lord began to appear 
again in Silo, as says the Scripture : ^''' whence the 
Jews regard Samuel as the founder of the congrega- 
tions of Prophets. 

It is supposed that all those who prophesied exer- 
cised the office of preaching; — which is not true, as 
appears from what occurred with the officers of Saul 
and with Saul himself : t in such sort that the vocation 
* I Kings iii. 21. f Ibid. xix. 

2 8 The Catholic Controversy. [part l 

of the Prophets has no bearing on that of heretics or 
schismatics. For (i.) it was either ordinary, as we 
have shown above, or else approved by the remainder 
of the Synagogue, as is easy to see in their being 
immediately recognised, and in their being highly 
esteemed everywhere amongst the Jews, who called 
them " men of God : " and he who will attentively 
examine the history of that ancient Synagogue will 
see that the office of priests was as common among 
them as that of preachers amongst us. (2.) Never 
can be pointed out Prophet who wished to overthrow 
the ordinary power ; on the contrary, all followed it, 
and spoke nothing contrary to the doctrine of those 
who sat upon the chair of Moses and of Aaron ; indeed, 
some of them were of the priestly race, as Jeremias 
son of Helcias, and Ezechiel son of Buzi. They have 
always spoken with honour of the priests and the 
sacerdotal succession, though they have reprehended 
their lives. Isaias, when about to write in a great 
book which was shown him, took Urias the priest, 
though the things were yet to come, and Zacharias the 
prophet as witnesses,* as if he were taking the testi- 
mony of all the Priests and Prophets. And does not 
Malachy bear witness t that the lijps of the priest shall 
keep knowledge^ and they shall seek the law at his mouth : 
because he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts ? — so far 
were they from ever having withdrawn the Jews from 
the communion of the Ordinary. (3), How many 
miracles did the Prophets work in confirmation of the 
prophetic vocation ? I should never end if I were to 
enter upon the computation of these : but at such 
times as they did a thing which had an appearance of 
* Isa. viii. i, 2. + ii. 7. 

CHAP. IV.] Mission. 29 

extraordinary power, immediately miracles followed. 
Witness Elias, who, setting up an altar on Mount 
Carmel according to the instinct which the Holy 
Spirit had given him, and offering sacrifice, showed by 
miracle that he did it to the honour of God and of the 
Jewish religion. (4.) And finally, it would well be- 
come your ministers to usurp the power of the 
Prophets — they who have never had either their gift 
or their light ! It should rather be for us to do so ; — 
for us, who could bring forward an infinity of Prophets 
on our side. For instance, S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, 
on the authority of S. Basil ; S. Anthony, on the testi- 
mony of Athanasius ; the Abbot John, on the testimony 
of S. Augustine ; S. Benedict, S. Bernard, S. Francis, 
and a thousand others. If, then, there is question 
between us of the prophetic authority, this is on our 
side, be it ordinary or be it extraordinary, since we 
have the reality ; not with your ministers, who have 
never given the shadow of a proof of its possession ; — 
unless they would call a prophecy Zwingle's vision in 
the book called Suhsidium de Eucha7%stid, and the 
book entitled Querela Luther ii, or the prediction he 
made in the twenty-fifth year of this century that if 
he preached two years more there would remain no 
Pope, nor priests, nor monks, nor belfries, nor mass. 
Truly there is but one defect in this prophecy — ^just 
want of truth. For he preached nigh twenty-two 
years longer, and yet there are still found priests and 
belfries, and in the chair of Peter sits a lawful Pope. 

Your first ministers then, gentlemen, are of the 
prophets whom God forbade to be heard, in Jeremias:* 
Hearken not to the words of the projphets that prophesy 

* xxiii. 

30 The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

to you and deceive you : they speak a vision of their 
own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord. . . . 
I did not send prophets, yet they ran : I have not spoken 
to them, yet they prophesied. . . . I have heard what the 
frophets said, that prophecy lies in my name, and say, 
I have dreamed^ I have dreamed. Does it not seem 
to you that it is Zwingle and Luther, with their pro- 
phecies and visions ? that it is Carlostadt, with his 
revelation which he pretended to have had about 
the Lord's Supper, and which gave occasion to Luther 
to write his book Contra scelestos prophetas. At any 
rate they certainly possess this property of not having 
been sent; it is they who use their tongues, and say. 
The Lord saith it. For they can never prove any right 
to the office which they usurp ; they can never produce 
any legitimate vocation. And how then shall they 
preach ? One cannot enrol oneself under any captain 
without the approval of one's prince: how then were 
you so ready to engage yourselves under the command 
of these first ministers, without the permission of your 
ordinary pastors, and so far as to leave the state in 
which you were born and bred, which is the Catholic 
Church ? They are guilty of having made this dis- 
turbance by their own authority, and you of having 
followed them, in which you are inexcusable. The 
good little Samuel, humble, gentle, and ho]y, having 
been called thrice by God, thought all the time that 
it was Heli who was calling him, and only at the 
fourth time addressed himself to God as to the one 
calling him. It has seemed to your ministers that 
God has thrice called them, ( i .) by peoples and magis- 
trates ; (2.) by our bishops ; (3.) by his extraordinary 
voice. No, no ! Let them not bring this forward, 

CHAP. IV.] Mission. 31 

that Samuel was called thrice by God, and in his 
humility thought it was a call by man, until, instructed 
by Heli, he knew that it was the divine voice. Your 
ministers, gentlemen, allege three vocations of God, 
by secular magistrates, by the bishops, and by his ex- 
traordinary voice. They think that it is God who has 
called them in those three ways : but you do not find 
that when they are instructed by the Church they ac- 
knowledsje that theirs is a vocation of man, and that 
their ears have tingled to the old Adam ; by no means 
do they submit the question to him who, as Heli did, 
now presides in the Church. 

Such then is the first reason which makes your 
ministers and you also inexcusable, though unequally 
so, before God and men in having left the Church. 

On the contrary, gentlemen, the Church, who con- 
tradicted and opposed your first ministers, and still 
opposes those of the present day, is so clearly marked 
on all sides that no one, blind as he may be, can pre- 
tend that his is a case of ignorance of the duty which 
all good Christians owe her, or that she is not the true, 
sole, inseparable, and dearest Spouse of the heavenly 
King, which makes the separation from her all the 
more inexcusable. For, to leave the Church and dis- 
regard her commands is evermore to become a heathen 
and a publican, let it be at the persuasion of an 
angel or a seraph. But, at the persuasion of men 
who were sinners on the largest scale against other 
private persons, who were without authority, without 
approval, without any quality required in preachers 
or prophets save the mere knowledge of certain 
sciences, to break all the ties of the most religious 
obligation of obedience which is in the world, namely, 

32 The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

that which is owing to the Church as Spouse of our 
Lord ! — this is a fault which cannot be covered save 
by a great repentance and penitence — to which I 
invite you on the part of the living God. 



Our adversaries, clearly perceiving that by this touch- 
stone their doctrine would be recognised as of base 
gold, try by all means to turn us from that invincible 
proof which we find in the marks of the true Church. 
And therefore they would maintain that the Church is 
invisible and unperceivable. I consider that this is 
the extreme of absurdity, and that immediately be- 
yond this abide frenzy and madness. I speak of the 
militant Church of which the Scripture has left us 
testimony, not of that which men put forward. Now, 
in all the Scripture it will never be found that the 
Church is taken for an invisible assembly. Here are 
our reasons. 

(i.) Our Lord and Master sends us to the Church in 
our difficulties and variances (Matt, xviii. i6, 17). 
S. Paul teaches how we ought to 'behave in it ( i Tim. 
iii. 15); he called together the ancients of the Church 
militant (Acts xx. 17) ; he shows them that they are 
'placed by the Holy Ghost (ibid. 28) ; he is sent by the 

CHAP, v.] Mission, 33 

Churchy with S. Barnabas (ibid. xiii. 1,3); he is received 
hy the Church (ibid. xv. 4) ; he confirmed the Churches 
(ibid. 41); he ordained for them 'priests in every Ghwrch 
(ibid. xiv. 22); he assembled the Church (ibid. 26) ; he 
saluted the Church at Csesarea (ibid, xviii. 22) ; he per- 
sectUed the Church (Gal. i. 13). How can all this be 
understood of an invisible Church ? Where should 
one seek it to lay complaints before it, to converse 
in it, to rule it ? When it sent S. Paul, and received 
him, when he confirmed it, ordained priests in it, 
assembled it, saluted it, persecuted it — was this in 
figure or in faith only, and in spirit ? I am sure that 
everybody must see that these were visible and per- 
ceptible acts on both sides. And when he wrote to it, 
did he address himself to some invisible chimera ? 

(2.) What will be said about the Prophets, who 
represent the Church to us as not only visible, but 
quite distinct, illustrious, manifest, magnificent ? They 
depict it as a queen in golden borders clothed round 
ahout with varieties (Ps. xliv. 14, I5)> s-s a mountain 
(Isa. ii. 2) ; as a sicn (Ps. Ixxxviii.) ; as a full moon ; 
as the rainbow, a faithful and certain witness of the 
favour of God towards men, who are all of the pos- 
terity of Noe : such is the signification of this Psalm 
in our version : Ut thronus ejus sicut sol in conspectu 
meOj et sicut luna jperfecta in wternum et testis in coelo 

(3.) The Scripture everywhere testifies that she can 
be seen and known, yea, that she is known. Solomon, 
in the Canticle of Canticles (vi.), speaking of the 
Church, — does he not say that the daughters saw her 
and declared her most blessed ? and then introducing 
the daughters, full of admiration he makes them say : 


34 The Catholic Controversy, [part l 

Who is she that cometh forth as the mo7^ning rising^ 
fair as the moon, hright as the sun, terrible as an army 
set in array ? Is this not to declare her visible ? 
And when he makes them call upon her thus : Bet^trn, 
return, Sulamitess ; return, return, that we may 
hehold thee ; and makes her answer : What shalt thou 
see in the Sulamitess hut the companies of camps ? — is 
not this again to declare her visible ? If one regard 
those admirable Canticles and pastoral representations 
of the loves of the celestial Bridegroom with the 
Church, one will see that she is throughout most 
visible and prominent. Isaias speaks of her thus 
(xxxv. 8) : This shall be unto you a straight way, so 
that fools shall not err therein ; — must she not be dis- 
played and easy to see, since even the simplest shall 
be able to guide themselves by her without fail ? 

(4.) The pastors and doctors of the Church are 
visible, therefore the Church is visible. For, I ask 
you, are not the pastors of the Church a part of the 
Church, and must not pastor and sheep know each 
other, must not the sheep hear the shepherd's voice 
and follow him, must not the good shepherd go seek 
his sheep that is lost, and recognise his enclosure and 
fold ? They would indeed be a fine sort of shepherd, 
who could not know or see his flock. I know not 
whether I am to prove that the pastors of the Church 
are visible ; things as evident are denied. S. Peter 
was a pastor, I suppose, since Our Lord said to him, 
Feed my sheep ; so were the Apostles, and they were 
seen. I suppose that those to whom S. Paul said, 
Take heed to yowselves and to all the flock, over which 
the Holy Ghost hath placed you, to ride the Church of 
God; — I suppose, say I, that they saw him; and 

CHAP, v.] Mission, 35 

when like good children they fell upon the neck of 
this good shepherd, bathing his face with their tears, 
I presume that he touched, and felt, and saw them ; 
and what makes me still more sure of it is that they 
were chiefly grieved at his departure for the word 
which he had said that they should see his face no more. 
And then, Zwingle, QEcolampadius, Luther, Calvin, 
Beza and Musculus are visible; and as to the two 
last many of you have seen them, and yet they are 
called pastors by their disciples. The pastors then 
are seen, and consequently the sheep also. 

(5.) It is the property of the Church to carry on 
the true preaching of the Word of God, the true adminis- 
tration of the Sacraments, — and is not all this visible ? 
How then would you have their subject invisible ? 

(6.) Do we not know that the twelve patriarchs, 
the children of the good Jacob, were the living spring 
of the Church of Israel ? And when their father had 
assembled them to bless them, they were seen and 
saw one another. Why do. I delay on this ? All 
sacred history testifies that the ancient synagogue was 
visible, and why not the Catholic Church ? 

(7.) As the patriarchs, fathers of the synagogue of 
Israel, of ivhom was Christ according to the flesh (Eom. 
ix. 5), formed the visible Church, so the Apostles with 
their disciples, children of the synagogue according to 
the flesh and spirit, gave beginning to the Catholic 
Church visibly, as the Psalmist says (xliv. 17): In- 
stead of thy father, sons are horn to thee ; thou shalt 
make them princes over all the earth. 

For twelve patriarchs are born to thee twelve 
Apostles, says Arnobius.* Those Apostles being 

* Arnobii (Jiinioris), Conim. in Ps. xliv. 

36 The Catholic Controversy, [part 1. 

gathered together in Jerusalem with the little com- 
pany of the disciples and the most glorious Mother of 
the Saviour formed the true Church, — and of what 
kind ? Visible without doubt, yea so visible that the 
Holy Spirit came to water these holy plants and seed- 
plots of Christianity. 

(8.) How did the ancient Jews begin their course 
as the people of God ? By circumcision, a visible 
sign ; — and we by baptism, a visible sign. By whom 
were those of old governed ? By the priests of the 
race of Aaron, visible men; — we by the bishops, 
visible men. By whom were the ancients taught ? 
By the prophets and doctors, visibly ; — we by our 
pastors and preachers, visibly. What religious and 
sacred food had the ancients to eat ? The paschal 
lamb, the manna, it is all visible ; — we have the most 
holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, a visible sign though 
of an invisible thing. By whom was the synagogue 
persecuted ? By the Egyptians, Babylonians, Madian- 
ites, Philistines, all visible nations : — the Church by 
the Pagans, Turks, Moors, Saracens, heretics ; — all is 
visible. Goodness of God ! — and we are still to ask 
whether the Church is visible ! But what is the 
Church ? An assembly of men who have flesh and 
bones ; — and are we to say that it is but a spirit 
or phantom, which seems to be visible and is so only 
by illusion ? No, no ; Why are you trouUed^ and 
why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? See her hands ; 
behold her ministers, officers, and governors : see her 
feet; look at her preachers how they carry her east 
and west, north and south. All are flesh and bones. 
Feel her ; come as humble children to throw yourselves 
into the bosom of this sweet mother. Consider her 

CHAP. VI.] Mission. 37 

throughout her whole body, entirely beautiful as she 
is, and you will see that she is visible ; for a spiritual 
and invisible thing liath not flesh and bories, as yoto see 
her to have (Luke ult.) 



Such are our reasons, sound under every test. But 
they have some counter-reasons, which, as they fancy, 
they draw from the Scriptures, but which are very 
easy of refutation to any one who will consider what 

( I .) Our Lord had in his humanity two parts, body 
and soul ; so the Church his spouse has two parts, 
the one interior, which is as her soul, invisible — Faith, 
Hope, Charity, Grace, — the other exterior, as her body, 
and visible — the Confession of Faith, Praises and 
Canticles, Preaching, Sacraments, Sacrifices. Yea, all 
that is done in the Church has its exterior and inte- 
rior. Prayer is interior and exterior ; Faith fills the 
heart with assurance and the mouth with confession ; 
Preaching is made exteriorly by men, but the secret 
light of the Heavenly Father is required in it, for we 
must always hear him and learn from him before 
coming to the Son ; and as to the Sacraments, the 
sign is exterior but the grace is interior, as every one 
knows. Thus then we have the interior of the Church 
and the exterior. Its greatest beauty is within, the 

3^ The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

outside is not so excellent, as says the Spouse in the 
Canticles (iv.) : Thij eyes are doves' eyes besides what is 
hid within. . . . Honey and milk are under thy tongue, 
that is, in thy heart ; — behold the interior. A7id the 
smell of thy garments as the odour of frankincense ; — 
behold the exterior service. And the Psalmist (xliv.) : 
All the glory of the King*s daughter is within ; — there 
is the interior. Clothed round in golden borders with 
varieties; — there is the exterior. 

(2.) We must consider that as well the interior as 
the exterior of the Church may be called spiritual, 
but differently. For the interior is spiritual purely 
and of its own nature ; the exterior of its own nature 
is corporal, but because it has a reference and tendency 
to the spiritual, the interior, we call it spiritual, as S. 
Paul calls those who made the flesh subject to the 
spirit, although they were corporeal ; and although each 
person be particular, of his own nature, still when he 
serves the public he is called a public man. Now, if 
one say that the Evangelical law was given on 
the hearts interiorly, not on tables of stone exteriorly, 
as Jeremias says (xxxi. 33), the answer is ; that in the 
interior of the Church and in its heart is all the chief 
of its glory, but this fails not to shine out over the 
exterior, by which it is known and recognised. So 
when it is said in the Gospel (John iv. 23) that the 
hour cometh, and oioiu is, when the true adorer shall adore 
the Father in spirit and in truth; — we are taught that 
the interior is the chief thing, and that the exterior 
is vain if it do not tend and flow towards the interior 
to spiritualise itself therein. In the same way, when 
S. Peter calls the Church a spiritual house ( i Pet. ii. 5 ), 
it is because all that proceeds from the Church tends 

CHAP. VI.] Mission. 39 

to the spiritual life, and because its greatest glory is in- 
terior ; or again because it is not a house made with 
lime and sand, but a mystical house of living stones, 
to which charity serves as cement. The holy Word 
says (Luke xvii. 20), The kingdom of God cometh not 
with observation : but the kingdom of God is the 
Church, therefore the Church is not visible ; — answer : 
the kingdom of God in this place is Our Lord with 
his grace, or, if you will, the company of Our Lord 
while he was in this world ; whence it continues : for 
behold the kingdom of God is within you; and this 
kingdom did not come with the surroundings and 
glory of a worldly magnificence, as the Jews expected; 
besides, as we have said, the fairest jewel of this 
King's daughter is hidden within, and cannot be seen. 
As to what S. Paul says to the Hebrews (xii. 18), 
that we are not come to the mountain that might be 
handled, like Mount Sina, but to the heavenly Jerusalem 
— he is not proposing to show that the Church is 
invisible : for S. Paul shows in this place that the 
Church is more magnificent and richly endowed than 
the Synagogue, and that she is not a natural moun- 
tain like that of Sina, but a mystical ; from which it 
does not follow that it is in any way invisible. In- 
deed, it may reasonably be said that he is actually 
speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem, that is, the 
triumphant Church ; wherefore he adds the comjpany of 
angels, as if to say that in the Old Law God was 
seen on the mountain after a terrible manner, and 
that the New leads us to see him in his glory there 
in Paradise above. 

Finally, here is the argument which everybody 
loudly asserts to be the strongest, — / believe in the 

40 The Catholic Controversy, [part l 

Holy Catholic Church : if I believe in it, I do not see 
it, therefore it is invisible. Is there anything feebler 
in the world than this phantom of a reason ? Did 
the Apostles not believe that Our Lord was risen 
again, and did they not see him ? Because thou hast 
seen me, he says himself to S. Thomas (John xx. 27): 
tkou hast believed ; and to make him believing he says 
to him, See my hands, and bring hither thy hand^ 
and jput it into my side, and he not faithless hut he- 
lieving. See how sight hinders not faith but pro- 
duces it. Now Thomas saw one thing and believed 
another ; he saw the body and he believed the spirit 
and the divinity ; for it was not his seeing which led 
him to say, My Lord and ray God ! — but his faith. 
So do we believe one Baptism for the remission of 
sins ; we see the Baptism, but not the remission of 
sins. Similarly, we see the Church, but not its in- 
terior sanctity ; we see its eyes as of a dove, but we- 
believe what is hidden within : we see its richly 
broidered garments, in beautiful variety, with golden 
borders, but the brightest splendour of its glory is 
within, which we believe. In this royal Spouse there 
is wherewith to feed the interior and the exterior eye, 
faith and sense, and all for the greater glory of her 

CHAP VII.] Mission, 41 



To prove the invisibility of the Church each one 
brings forward his reason ; but the most feeble of all 
is that derived from eternal predestination. Certainly 
it is with no little artfulness that they turn the spiritual 
eyes of the militant Church upon eternal predestina- 
tion, in order that, dazzled by the lightnings of this 
inscrutable mystery, we may not perceive what lies 
before us. They say that there are two Churches, 
one visible and imperfect, the other invisible and per- 
fect, and that the visible can err and can be blown 
away by the wind of errors and idolatries, the invisible 
not. And if one ask what is the visible Church, they 
answer that it is the assemblage of those persons who 
profess the same faith and sacraments, which contains 
bad and good, and is a Church only in name ; and 
that the invisible Church is that which contains only 
the elect, who are not in the knowledge of men, but 
are only recognised and seen by God. 

But we will clearly show that the true Church con- 
tains the good and the bad, the reprobate and the elect ; 
— and here are the proofs. 

(i.) Was not that the true Church wliich S. Paul 
called the pillar and ground of truth and the house of 
the living God (i Tim. iii. 15)? Certainly; — for to 
be a pillar of truth cannot appertain to an erring and 
straying Church. Now the Apostle witnesses of this 
true Church, the house of God, that there are in it 

42 The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

vessels unto honour and unto dishonour (2 Tim. ii. 20,) 
that is, good and bad. 

(2.) Is not that Church against which the gates of 
hell shall not prevail (Matt. xvi. 18) the true Church ? 
Nevertheless there are therein men who have to be 
loosed from their sins, and others whose sins have to 
be retained, as Our Lord shows us in the promise and 
the power he gave to S. Peter in this matter. Those 
whose sins are retained — are they not wicked and 
reprobate ? Indeed, the reprobate are precisely those 
whose sins are retained, and by the elect we ordinarily 
mean those whose sins are pardoned. Now, that those 
whose sins S. Peter had power to forgive or to retain 
were in the Church is evident ; for them that are outside 
the Church only God will judge (i Cor. v. 13). Those 
therefore of whom S. Peter was to judge were not 
outside the Church but within, though amongst them 
there were some reprobate. 

(3.) And does not Our Lord teach us that when we 
are offended by some one of our brethren, after having 
reprehended and corrected him twice, in two different 
fashions, we should take him to the Church ? Tell the 
Cliurch ; and if he will not hear the Church let him he 
to thee as the heathen and the publican (Matt, xviii. 17). 
Here one cannot escape — the consequence is inevi- 
table. There is question of one of our bretliren who 
is neither heathen nor publican, but under the disci- 
pline and correction of the Church, and consequently 
member of the Church, and yet there is no inconsis- 
tency in his being reprobate, perverse, and obstinate. 
Not only then do the good belong to the true Church, 
but the wicked also, until such time as they are cast out 
from it, unless one would say that the Church to which 

CHAP, vil] Mission, 4 


Our Lord sends us is an erring, sinful, and antichristian 
Church. This would be too open a blasphemy. 

(4.) When Our Lord says/"' The servant ahideth 
not in the house for ever ; but the Son ahideth for ever 
(John viii. 35) ; — is it not the same as if he said that 
in the house of the Church the elect and the reprobate 
are for a time ? Wlio can this servant be who abide th 
not in the house for ever except the one who shall he 
cast into exterior darkness. And in fact Christ clearly 
shows that he so understands it when he says immedi- 
ately before, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant 
of sin. Now this man, though he abide not for ever, yet 
abideth during such time as he is required for service. 
S. Paul writes to the Church of God which was at 
Corinth (i Cor. i. 2), and yet he wishes them to drive 
out a certain incestuous man (ibid, v.) If he be driven 
out he was there, and if he were there and the Church 
were the assemblage of the elect, how could they drive 
him out ? The elect cannot be reprobate. 

But why may we not lay down that the reprobate 
and wicked are of the true Church, when they can 
even be pastors and bishops therein ? That is cer- 
tain : is not Judas reprobate ? And yet he was 

* In a detached note elsewhere the Saint draws special attention to 
the force of this text. "From this," he says, "it is conclusively 
shown that there are sinners in the Church." And he proceeds to 
give an argument from the utility of their presence. "Those pas- 
sages of the Psalm (cxviii.). Thou hast made me wise over my enemies, 
then, over all my teachers, then, over ancients, &c., prove that we can 
gain excellent knowledge and profit from our enemies. For, by over 
{super), in the expression over my enemies, may be understood, says 
Genebrard, by occasion of my enemies, from or out of my enemies. And 
since the being made wise by means of enemies is put before the being 
made wise by means of elders or teachers, it rightly follows that we 
have richer sources of knowledge in the school of enemies than in that 
of teachers," &c. 

44 T^h^ Catholic Controversy, [part l 

Apostle and bishop ; according to the Psalmist (cviii. 8), 
and according to S. Peter (Acts i. 17), who says that 
he had obtained part of the ministry of the apostolate, 
and according to the whole Gospel, which ever places 
him in the number of the college of the Apostles. 
Was not Nicholas of Antioch a deacon like S. Stephen ? 
— and yet many ancient Fathers make no difficulty 
on that account of considering him an heresiarch ; 
witness, amongst others, Epiphanius, Philostratus, 
Jerome. And in fact the Nicolaites took occasion 
from him to recommend their abominations, of whom 
S. John makes mention in the Apocalypse (ii. 6), as 
of real heretics. S. Paul declares to the priests of 
Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had made them bishops 
to ride the Church of God (Acts xx. 28), but he assures 
them also that some of their ow)i selves vjould rise up 
speaking perverse things, to draw aiuay disciples after 
them. He speaks to all when he says that the Holy 
Spirit has made them bishops, and speaks of those 
very same persons when he says that from amongst 
them shall schismatics arise. But when should I have 
finished if I would here heap up the names of all 
those bishops and prelates who, after having been 
lawfully placed in this office and dignity, have fallen 
from their first grace and have died heretics. Who, 
for a simple priest, ever said anything so holy, so wise, 
so chaste, so charitable as Origen ? No one could 
read what is written of him by Vincent of Lerins, one 
of the most judicious and learned of Church writers, 
no one could ponder over his accursed old age, after a 
life so admirable and holy, without being filled with 
compassion, to see this grand and brave pilot, — after so 
many storms weathered, after so many and such lucra- 

CHAP. VII.] Mission. 45 

tive voyages to Hebrews, Arabs, Chaldseans, Greeks, and 
Latins, — on his return, full of honour and of spiritual 
riches, suffer shipwreck and perish in port, on the edge 
of the tomb ! Who would dare to say that he had 
not been of the true Church, he who had always 
fought for the Church, and whom the whole Church 
honoured and held as one of its grandest Doctors ? 
And yet behold him at last a heretic, excommunicate 
outside the Ark, perishing in the deluge of his own 
conceit ! All this corresponds with the holy word of 
Our Lord (Matt, xxiii. 2), who considered the Scribes 
and Pharisees as the true pastors of the true Church 
of that time, since he commands that they should be 
obeyed, and yet considered them not as elect but 
rather as reprobate. Now what an absurdity would 
it be, I ask you, if the elect alone were of the Church ? 
That would follow which is said of the Donatists, that 
we could not know our prelates, and consequently 
could not pay them obedience. For how should we 
know whether those who were called prelates and 
pastors were of the Church, since we cannot know who 
of the living is predestinate and who is not, as will be 
said elsewhere ? — and if they are not of the Church, 
how can they hold the place of elect there ? It would 
indeed be one of the strangest monsters that could be 
seen — if the head of the Church were not of the 
Church. Not only then can one who is reprobate be 
of the Church but even pastor in the Church. The 
Church then cannot be called invisible on the ground 
that it is composed of the predestinate alone. 

I conclude all this discourse by the Gospel com- 
parisons which show this truth clearly and completely. 

S. John likens the Church to the threshing-floor of 

46 The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

a farm, on which is not only tlie wheat for the barn, 
but also the chaff to be burnt with unquenchable fire 
(Matt. iii. 1 2) ; are these not the elect and the repro- 
bate ? Our Lord compares it to a net cast into the sea, 
and gathering together of all kind of fishes, good and 
bad (ibid. xiii. 47) ; to ten virgins, five of them foolish 
and five wise (ibid. xxv. 2); to three servants, one of 
whom is slothfid, and therefore cast into the exterior 
darkness (ibid. 14); finally, to a marriage-feast, unto 
which have entered both good and bad, and the bad, 
not having on the nuptial garment, are cast into 
exterior darkness (ibid, xxii.) Are not all these as 
many sufficient proofs that not only the elect but also 
the reprobate are in the Church ? "We must therefore 
close the door of our judgment to all sorts of notions 
of this kind, and to this one amongst them, by means 
of that never-enough-pondered proposition : Many are 
called, hut few are chosen (ibid.) All those who are 
in the Church are called, ]>ut all who are therein are 
not elect; and indeed Church does not mean election 
but convocation. 



Where will they find the Scripture passage which 
can furnish them any excuse for so many absur- 
dities, and against proofs so clear as those we have 
given ? Yet counter-reasons are not wanting in this 

CHAP. VIII.] Mission, 47 

matter : never does obstinacy leave its followers with- 
out them. 

Will they then bring forward what is written in 
the Canticles (iv.) concerning the Spouse ; how she is 
a garden enclosed, a fountain or spring sealed up, a 
luell of living waters, how she is all fair and there is 
not a spot in her; or, as the Apostle says, how she 
is glorious, not having spot or wrinkle, holy, without 
blemish (Eph. v. 27) ? I earnestly beg them to consider 
the conclusion they wish to draw, namely, that there 
can be in the Church none but saints, immaculate, 
faultless, glorious. I will, with the same passages, 
show them that in the Cliurch there are neither 
elect nor reprobate. For is it not the humble but 
truthful saying, as the great Council of Trent declares, 
of all the just and elect, Forgive us our trespasses, as 
vje forgive them that tresimss against us. I suppose 
S. James was elect, and yet he confesses (iii. 2), 
In many things vje all offend. S. John closes our 
mouth and the mouth of all the elect, so that no one 
may boast of being without sin ; on the contrary, he 
will have each one know and confess that he sins 
(i John i.) I believe that David in his rapture and 
ecstasy knew what the elect are, and yet he considered 
every man to be a liar (Ps. cxv. 11). If then these 
holy qualities given to the Spouse, the Church, are 
to be taken precisely, and if there is to be no spot or 
wrinkle anywhere in it, we must go out of this world 
to iind the verification of these fair titles, the elect 
of this world will not be able to claim them. Let us 
then make the truth clear. 

(i.) The Church as a whole is entirely fair, holy, 
glorious, both as to morals and as to doctrine. Morals 

48 The Catholic Controversy. [part l 

depend on the will, doctrine on the understanding. 
Into the understanding of the Church there never 
entered falseness, nor wickedness into her will. By 
the grace of her Spouse she can say with him, Which 
of you, sworn enemies, shall convince me of sin ? 
(John viii. 46.) And yet it does not follow that in 
the Church there are no sinners. Eemember what I 
have said to you elsewhere : the Spouse has hair, and 
nails, which are not living though she is living; the 
senate is sovereign, but not each senator ; the army is 
victorious, but not each soldier — it wins the battle 
while many of its soldiers are killed. In this way is 
the militant Church always glorious, ever victorious 
over the gates and powers of hell, although many of 
her members, either straying and thrown into disorder 
like yourselves, are cut to pieces and destroyed, or by 
other mishaps are wounded and die within her. Take 
then one after another the grand praises of the Church 
which are scattered throughout the Scriptures and make 
her a crown out of them, for they are richly due to 
her; just as maledictions are due to those who being 
in so excellent a way are lost. Slie is an a?'my set in 
array (Cant. vi. 9), though some fall out of her ranks. 
(2.) But who knows not how often that is attributed 
to a whole body which belongs only to one of the 
parts ? The Spouse calls her beloved white and ruddy; 
but immediately she says his locks are black (ibid. v. 
I o, 1 1 ). S. Matthew says (xxvii. 44) that the thieves 
who were crucified with Our Saviour blasphemed him, 
whereas it was only one of them who did so, as S. 
Luke relates (xxiii. 39). We say that lilies are white, 
but there are yellow and there are green. He who 
speaks the language of love readily uses such expres- 

CHAP. VIII.] Mission, 49 

sions, and the Canticles are the chaste expressions 
of love. All these qualities then are justly attri- 
buted to the Church on account of the many holy 
souls therein who most exactly observe the holy 
Commandments of God, and are perfect — with the 
perfection that may be had in this pilgrimage, not 
with that which we hope for in our blessed fatherland. 

(3.) Moreover, though there were no other reason 
for thus describing the Church than the hope she has 
of ascending, all pure, all beautiful, to heaven above, 
the fact that this is the sole term towards which she 
aspires and runs, would suffice to let her be called 
glorious and perfect, especially while she has so many 
fair pledges of this holy hope. 

He would never end who should take notice of all 
the trifles which they stay examining here, and on 
which they raise a thousand false alarms amongst the 
poor common people. They bring forward that of S. 
John (x.) ; / know my slieepy and no one shall snatch 
them out of my hand: and they say that those sheep 
ai'e the predestinate, who alone belong to the fold of 
the Lord. They bring forward what S. Paul says to 
Timothy (2 Tim. ii. 19): The Lord knows ivho are his; 
and what S. John has said to apostates : they ivent ont 
from tts, hut they ivere not of %ts {i John ii. 19). But 
what difficulty is there in all this ? We admit that 
the predestinate sheep hear the voice of their pastor, 
and have sooner or later all the qualities which are 
described in S. John ; but he also maintains that in the 
Church, which is the fold of Our Lord, there are not 
only sheep but also goats. Otherwise, why should it 
be said that at the end of the world, in the Judgment, 
the sheep shall be separated, unless because, until the 


50 The Catholic Controversy. [part l 

Judgment, whilst the Church is in this world, she has 
within herself goats with the sheep ? Certainly if 
they had never been together they would never be 
separated. And in the last instance, if the predesti- 
nate are called sheep, so also are the reprobate. 
Witness David : Why is thy wrath enJcindled against 
the sheej? of thy pasture 1 (Ps. Ixxiii. i). I have gone 
astray like a sheep that is lost (cxviii. ult.). And else- 
where, where he says : Give ear, thou that rulest 
Israel ; thou that leadest Joseph like a sheep (Ixxix. i) : 
— when he says Joseph, he means those of Joseph, 
and the Israelitish people, because to Joseph was given 
the primogeniture, and the eldest gives the name to 
the race. But who knows not that among the people 
of Israel every one was not predestinate or elect, and 
yet they are called sheep, and all are together under 
one shepherd. We confess then that there are sheep 
saved and predestinated, of whom it is spoken in S. 
John : there are others damned, of whom it is spoken 
elsewhere, and all are in the same flock. 

Isaias (liii. 6) compares all men, both the reprobate 
and the elect, to sheep : All we like sheep have gone 
astray ; and in verse 7 he similarly compares Our 
Saviour : He shall he led as a sheep to the slaughter. And 
so throughout the whole of c. xxxiv. of Ezechiel, where 
there is no doubt but that the whole people of Israel 
are called sheep, over which David has to reign (v. 23). 

And in the same way, — who denies that Our Lord 
knows those who are his ? He knew certainly what 
would become of Judas, yet Judas was not therefore not 
one of his Apostles. He knew what would become of 
those disciples who went hack (John vi. 67) on account 
of the doctrine of the real eating of his flesh, and yet 

CHAP. VIII.] Mission* 51 

he received them as disciples. It is a quite different 
thing to belong to God according to the eternal fore- 
knowledge, as regards the Church Triumphant, and to 
belong to God according to the present communion of 
Saints for the Church Militant. The first are known 
only to God, the latter are known to God and to men. 
" According to the eternal foreknowledge," says S. 
Augustine,* "how many wolves are within; how many 
sheep without ! " Our Lord then knows those who 
are his for his Triumphant Church, but besides these 
there are many others in the Militant Church whose 
end will be perdition, as the same Apostle shows 
when he says that in a great house there are all sorts 
of vessels and utensils, some indeed unto honour^ hut 
some unto disho7iour (2 Tim. ii. 20). 

So, what S. John says : They have go7ie oitt from 
amongst us, hut they were not of us, is nothing to the 
purpose. For I will say, as S. Augustine said : They 
were with us numero, but they were not with us 
merito : that is, as the same Doctor says,t " they were 
with us and were ours by the Communion of the 
Sacraments, but according to their own individual 
vices they were not so." They were already heretics 
in tbeir soul and will, though they were not so after 
the external appearance. And this is not to say that 
the good are not with the bad in the Church : on the 
contrary indeed, how could they go out of the company 
of the Church if they were not in it ? They were 
doubtless in it actually, but in will they were already 

Finally, here is an argument which seems to be 
complete in form and in figure. " He has not God 

* In J. xlv. t lb. Ixi. 

52 The Catholic Controversy. [part l 

for Father who has not the Church for mother ; " * 
that is certain : similarly he who has not God for 
Father has not the Church for mother ; most cer- 
tainly : now the reprobate have not God for Father, 
therefore they have not the Church for mother; and 
consequently the reprobate are not in the Church. 
But the answer is this. We accept the first founda- 
tion of this reason ; but the second — that the repro- 
bate are not children of God — requires to be well- 
sifted. All the faithful baptized can be called sons 
of God, so long as they are faithful, unless one would 
take away from Baptism the name of regeneration or 
spiritual nativity which Our Lord has given it. If 
thus understood there are many of the reprobate who 
are children of God, for how many persons are there, 
faithful and baptized, who will be damned, men who, 
as the Truth says, helieve for a ivhile, and in time of 
temptation fall away (Luke viii. 13). So that we 
totally deny this second proposition, that the repro- 
bate are not children of God.t For being^ in the 
Church they can be called children of God by Crea- 
tion, Eedemption, Eegeneration, Doctrine, Profession 
of faith ; although our Lord laments over them in 
this sort by Isaias (i. 2) : / have brought wp children 
.... and they have despised me. But if one say 
that the reprobate have not God for their Father 
because they will not be heirs, according to the word 
of the Apostle, if a son an heir also (Gal. iv. 7) — we 
shall deny the consequence : for not onl}^ are the 
children within the Church, but so are the servants 

* Cyp. de unit. Ecd. v. 

+ Gal. iii. 26. For you are all the children of God hy faith in Clirist 
Jesus ; — and yet he calls them senseless (iii. i), and removed, &c. (i. 6). 

CHAP. VIII.] Mission, 53 

too, with this dilTerence, that the children will abide 
there for ever as heirs; the servants shall not, but 
shall be turned out when it seems good to the 
master. Witness the Master himself in S. John 
(viii. 35), and the penitent son wlio knew well and 
acknowledged that many hired servants in his father's 
house abounded in bread, while he, true and lawful 
son, was amongst tlie swine, perishing with hunger, a 
proof of the Catholic faith in tliis point. how 
many princes are walking on the ground as servants 
(Eccles. X. 7) ! How many unclean animals and 
ravens in the Ark of the Church ! how many 
fair and sweet-smelling apples are on the tree cankered 
within yet attached to the tree, and drawing good sap 
from the trunk ! He who had eyes clear-seeing 
enough to see the issue of the career of men, would 
see in the Church reason indeed to cry : many are 
called and few are cJiosen ; that is, many are in the 
Militant Church who will never be in the Triumphant. 
How many are within who shall be without ; — as 
S. Anthony foresaw of Arius, and S. Fulbert of Beren- 
garius. It is then a certain thing that not only the 
elect but also the reprobate can be and are of the 
Church. And he who to make it invisible would 
place only the elect therein, acts like the wicked 
scholar who excused himself for not going to the 
assistance of his master, on the ground that he had 
learnt nothing about his body but only about his soul. 

54 The Catholic Controversy, [pabt j 



I SHALL be more brief here, because what I shall say- 
in the following chapter forms a strong proof for this 
belief in the immortality of the Church and its perpe- 
tuity. It is said then, to escape the yoke of the holy 
submission which is owing to the Church, that it 
perished eighty odd years ago ; that it is dead and 
buried, and the holy light of the true faith ex- 
tinguished. All this is open blasphemy against the 
Passion of our Lord, against his Providence, against 
his goodness, against his truth. 

Do we not know the word of our Lord himself : 
And I ^ if I he lifted up from the earthy will draw all 
things to myself (John xii. 3 2) ? Was he not lifted 
up on the cross ? did He not suffer ? — and how then 
having drawn to himself the Church, should he let it 
escape so utterly from him ? how should he let go 
this prize which had cost him so dear ? Had the 
prince of the world, the devil, been driven out with 
the stick of the cross for a time of three or four 
hundred years, to return and reign a thousand years ? 
Would you make so absolutely vain the might of the 
cross ? Is your faithfulness in judgment of such a 
sort that you would thus iniquitously divide our Lord, 
and henceforward place a certain comparison between 
the divine goodness and diabolical malice ? No, no : 
When a strong man armed heepeth his court, those 
things which he possesseth are in peace : but if a stronger 
than he come upon him, and overcome him, he will take 

CHAP. IX.] Mission, 55 

away all his armour and will distribute his spoils 
(Luke xi. 22, 23). Are you ignorant that Our Lord 
has purchased the Church with His own Blood ? — 
and who can take it from him ? Think you that he 
is weaker than his adversary ? Ah ! I pray you, 
speak honourably of this captain. And who then 
shall snatch his Church out of his hands ? Perhaps 
you will say he is one who can keep it, but who will 
not. It is then his Providence, his goodness, his truth 
that you attack. The goodness of God has given gifts 
to men as he ascends to heaven . . . apostles, prophets, 
evangelists, pastors, doctors — for the perfection of the 
saints in the work of the ministry^ unto the edification 
of the hody of Christ (Eph. iv. 12). Was the per- 
fection of the saints already accomplished eleven or 
twelve hundred years ago ? Had the edification of 
the mystical body of our Lord, that is, the Church, 
been completed ? Either cease to call yourselves 
edi tiers or answer no : — and if it has not been com- 
pleted, as in fact it has not, even yet, why wrong you 
thus the goodness of God, saying that he has taken 
back and carried away from men what he had given 
them ? It is one of the qualities of the goodness of 
God that, as S. Paul says (Eom. xi. 29) his gifts are 
without repentance : that is to say, he does not give in 
order to take away. 

His divine Providence, as soon as it had created 
man, the heavens, the earth, and the things that are 
in heaven and on earth, preserved them and perpetu- 
ally preserves them, in such a way that the species 
{generation) of each tiniest bird is not yet extinct. 
What then shall we say of the Church ? All this 
world cost him at the dearest but a simple word : he 

56 The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

%]p6ke and all tcere made (Ps. cxlviii. 5) ; and he pre- 
serves it with a perpetual and infallible Providence. 
How, I ask you, should he have abandoned the Church, 
which cost him all his blood, so many toils and travails ? 
He has drawn Israel out of Egypt, out of the desert, 
out of the Eed Sea, out of so many calamities and 
captivities; — and we are to believe that he has let 
Christianity be engulfed in infidelity ! He has had 
such care of his Agar, and he will despise Sara ! He 
has so highly favoured the servant who was to be 
driven out of the house, and he will hold the legiti- 
mate wife in no esteem ! He shall so greatlv have 
honoured the shadow, and will abandon the substance ! 
Oh ! how utterly vain and good for nothing would be 
the promises on promises which he has made of the 
perpetuity of this Church. 

It is of the Church that the Psalmist sings : God 
hath founded it for ever (xlvii. 9) ; In his days shall 
justice s^pring up, and abundance of peace, till the moon 
he taken away for ever (Ixxi. 7). What peace, what 
justice, except in the Church ? His throne (he is 
speaking in the person of the eternal Father, of the 
Church, which is the throne of the Messiah, David's 
son) shall he as the sun hefore me, and as the moon 
perfect for ever, and a faithful witness in heaven 
(Ixxxviii. 38). And: / will make his seed to endure 
for evermore; and his throne as the days of heaven 
(30) ; — that is, as long as heaven shall endure. Daniel 
(ii. 44) calls it: A kingdom ivhich shall not he de- 
stroyed for ever. The angel says to Our Lady that of 
his kingdom there shall he no end (Luke i. 33), and he 
is speaking of the Church, as we prove elsewhere. 
Did not Isaias prophesy thus of Our Lord (liii. 10): 

CHAP. IX.] Mission, 57 

If he shall lay doivn his life for sin, he shall see a long- 
lived seed, that is, of long duration : and elsewhere 
(Ixi. 8) : I will make a perpetual covenant with them ; 
and : all that see them (he speaks of the visible 
Church) shall know them ? 

Now, I ask you, who has given Luther and Calvin 
a commission to revoke so many holy and solemn 
promises of perpetuity which Our Lord has made to 
his Church ? Is it not Our Lord who, speaking of his 
Church, says that the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it ? How shall this promise be verified if the 
Church has been abolished a thousand years or more ? 
How shall we understand that sweet adieu our Lord 
made to his Apostles : Behold I am with you all days, 
even to the consummation of the world (Matt, ult.), if 
we say that the Church can perish ? Or do we really 
wish to violate the sound rule of Gamaliel, who speak- 
ing of the rising Church used this argument : If this 
design or ivork he of men, it will fall to nx)thing ; hut if 
it he of God, you are not able to destroy it (Acts v. 38, 
39) ? Is not the Church the work of God ? — and 
how then shall we say that it has come to nothing ? 

If this fair tree of the Church had been planted by 
man's hand I would easily acknowledge that it could 
be rooted up, but having been planted by so good a 
hand as is that of our Lord, I could not offer better 
counsel to those who hear people crying at every turn 
that the Church had perished than what our Lord 
said : Let these blind people alone, for every plant 
which God hath not planted shall he rooted up (Matt. 
XV. 13, 14). 

S. Paul says that all shall he made alive ; hut each 
one in his own order : the first-fruits Christy then they 

58 The Catholic Controversy, Lp^^rt i. 

that are of Christ, . . . afterwards the end (i Cor. xv. 
22, 23, 24). Between Christ and those that are of 
Christ, that is, the Church, there is no interval, for 
ascending up to heaven he has left them on earth; 
between the Church and the end there is no interval, 
since it was to last unto the end. How ! was not our 
Lord to reign in the midst of his enemies, until he had 
put under his feet and subjected all who were opposed 
to him (Ps. cix. 2) ? — and how shall these authorities 
be fulfilled, if the Church, the kingdom of our Lord, 
has been ruined and destroyed ? How should he reign 
without a kingdom, and how should he reign among 
his enemies unless he reigned in this world below ? 

But, I pray you, if this Spouse had died, who first 
drew life from the side of her Bridegroom asleep on 
the cross, if, I say, she had died, who would have 
raised her from the dead ? Do we not know that the 
resurrection of the dead is not a less miracle than 
creation, and much greater than continuation or pre- 
servation ? Do we not know that the re-formation of 
man is a much deeper mystery than the formation ? 
In the formation God spake, and man was made, he 
breathed into him the living soul, and had no sooner 
breathed it into him than this man besjan himself to 
breathe: but in his re-formation God employed thirty- 
three years, sweated blood and water, yea, he died over 
this re-formation. Whoever then is rash enough to 
say that this Church is dead, calls in question the 
goodness, the diligence and the wisdom of this great 
Eeformer. And he who thinks himself to be the 
reformer or resuscitator thereof, attributes to himself 
the honour due to Jesus Christ alone, and makes him- 
self greater than the Apostles. The Apostles have 

CHAP. IX.] Mission. 59 

not brought the Church back to life, but have pre- 
served its life by their ministry, after our Lord had 
instituted it. He then who says that having found 
the Church dead he has raised it to life — does he not 
in your opinion deserve to be seated on the throne of 
audacity ? Our Lord had cast the fire of his charity 
upon the earth, the Apostles blowing on it by their 
preaching had increased it and spread it throughout 
the world : you say it has been extinguished by the 
waters of ignorance and iniquity ; — who shall enkindle 
it again ? ^ Blowing is of no use : what is to be done 
then ? Perhaps we must strike again with nails and 
lance on Jesus Christ the holy living stone, to bring 
forth a new fire : — or shall it be enough to have Calvin 
or Luther in the world to relight it ? This would 
indeed be to be third Eliases, for neither Elias nor S. 
John Baptist did ever as much. This would be leaving 
all the Apostles far far behind, who did indeed carry 
this fire throughout the world, but did not enkindle it. 
" impudent cry ! " says S. Augustine against the 
Donatists,t " the Church is not, because you are not 
in it ! " " No, no," says S. Bernard,t " tlu floods came, 
and the winds hleiv, o,nd they heat upon that house, and 
it fell not ; for it was founded upon a rock (Matt. vii. 
25), and the rock was Christ (i Cor. x. 4)." 

And to say the Church has failed — what else is it 
but to say that all our predecessors are damned. Yes, 
truly ; for outside the true Church there is no salva- 
tion, out of this Ark every one is lost. Oh what a 
return we make to those good Fathers who have 
suffered so much to preserve to us the inheritance of 
the Gospel : and now so arrogant are their children 

* In Ps. ci., S. 2. t S. 79 m Cant. 

6o The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

that they scorn them, and hold them as silly fools and 

I will conclude this proof with S. Augustine,* and 
say to your ministers : " What do you bring us new ? 
Shall it be necessary to sow again the good seed, 
whereas from the time of its sowinoj it is to ijrow till 
the harvest ? If you say that what the Apostles sowed 
has everywhere perished, we answer to you : read 
this to us from the Holy Scriptures : this you shall 
never do without having first shown us that this is 
false which is written, saying, that the seed which was 
sown in the beginning should grow till the time of the 
harvest. The sfood seed is the children of the kin^- 
dom, the cockle is the wicked, the harvest is the end 
of the world (Matt. xiii.). Say not then that the 
good seed is destroyed or choked, for it grows even 
to the consummation of the world." 



(i.) Was not the Church everywhere destroyed when 
Adam and Eve sinned ? Answer : Adam and Eve 
were not the Church, but the commencement of the 
Church. And it is not true that the Church was 
ruined then, or yet that it had been, because they did 
not sin in doctrine or belief but in act. 

(2.) Did not Aaron the High Priest adore the golden 

* l)c Unit. Eccl. xvii. 

OHAP. X.] Mission. 6i 

calf with all his people ? Answer : Aaron was not 
as yet High Priest, nor head of the people, but became 
so afterwards. And it is not true that all the people 
worshipped idols : — for were not the children of Levi 
men of God, who joined themselves to Moses ? 

(3.) Elias lamented that he was alone in Israel 
(3 K. xix. 14). Answer: Elias was not the only 
good man in Israel, for there were seven thousand 
men who had not given themselves up to idolatry, and 
what the Prophet says here is only to express better 
the justice of his complaint. It is not true again that 
if all Israel had failed, the Church would have there- 
by ceased to exist, for Israel was not the whole Church. 
Indeed it was already separated therefrom by the 
schism of Jeroboam ; and the kingdom of Juda was 
the better and principal part ; and it is Israel, not 
Juda, of which Azarias predicted (II Par. xv. 3), that 
it should be without priest and sacrifice. 

(4.) Isaias says (i. 6) that from head to foot tlure 
is no soundness. Answer : these are forms of speak- 
ing, and of vehemently detesting the vice of a people. 
And although the Prophets, pastors and preachers use 
these general modes of expression, we are not to under- 
stand them of each particular person, but only of a 
large porportion ; as appears by the example of Elias 
who complained that he was alone, notwithstanding 
that there were yet seven thousand faithful. S. Paul 
complains to the Philippians (ii. 21) that all seek their 
own interest and advantage ; still at the end of the 
Epistle he acknowledges that there were many good 
people with him and with them. Who knows not 
the complaint of David (Ps. xiii. 3), that there is none 
that doth good, no, not one ? — and who knows not on the 

62 The Catholic Controversy, [part l 

other hand that there were many good people in his 
day ? These forms of speech are frequent, but we 
must not draw a particular conclusion about each 
individual. Further, — such things do not prove that 
faith had failed . in the Church, nor that the Church 
was dead : for it does not follow that if a body is 
everywhere diseased it is therefore dead. Thus, with- 
out doubt, are to be understood all similar things 
which are found in the threats and rebukes of the 

(4.) Jeremias tells us (vii. 4) not to trust in lying 
words, saying : the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of 
the Lord. Answer : who maintains that under pre- 
tence of the Church we are to trust to a lie ? Yea, 
on the contrary, he who rests on the judgment of the 
Church rests on the pillar and ground of truth ; he 
who trusts to the infallibility of the Church trusts to 
no lie, unless that is a lie which is written : the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it. We place our trust 
then in the Holy Word, which promises perpetuity to 
the Church. 

(5.) Is it not written that the revolt and separation 
must come (2 Thess. ii. 3), and that the sacrifice shall 
cease (Dan. xii. 11), and that the Son of Man shall 
hardly find faith on earth at his second A/isible return 
(Luke xviii. 8), when he will come to judge ? Answer : 
all these passages are understood of the affliction which 
antichrist will cause in the Church, during the three 
and a half years that he si 1 all reign mightily ; but in 
spite of this the Church during even these three years 
shall not fail, and shall be fed and preserved amid the 
deserts and solitudes whither it shall retire, as the 
Scripture says (Apoc. xii.). 

CHAP. XL] Mission, 63 




The ancients had wisely said that to distinguish 
correctly the different times referred to in the Scrip- 
tures is a good rule for interpreting them aright ; 
for lack of which distinction the Jews continually err, 
attributing to the first coming of the Messias what 
is properly said of the second : and the adversaries of 
the Church err yet more grossly, when they would 
make the Church such from the time of S. Gregory 
to this age as it is to be in the time of antichrist. 
They wrest to this sense that which is written in the 
Apocalypse (xii. 6), that the woman fled into solitude ; 
and draw the consequence that the Church has been 
hidden and secret, trembling at the tyranny of the 
Pope, this thousand years, until she has come forward 
in Luther and his adherents. But who sees not that 
all this passage refers to the end of the world, and the 
persecution of antichrist, the time three years and a 
half being expressly determined therein ; and in Daniel 
also (xii. 7) ? And he who would by some gloss 
extend this time which the Scripture has limited would 
openly contradict Our Lord, who says (Matt. xxiv. 22) 
that for the sake of the elect those dags shall he shortened. 
How then do they dare to transfer this Scripture to 
an interpretation so foreign to the intention of the 
author, and so contrary to its own circumstances, 
refusing to look at so many other holy words which 
prove and certify, loudly and clearly, that the Church 

64 The Catholic Controversy. [part i. 

shall never be in the desert thus hidden until that 
extremity, and for that short time ; that she will he 
seen to flee thither and be seen thence to come forth ? 
I will not again bring forward the numerous passages 
previously cited, in which the Church is said to be like 
to the sun, the moon, the rainbow, a queen, a moun- 
tain as great as the world, — and a multitude of others. 
I will content myself with putting before your con- 
sideration two great captains of the ancient Church, 
two of the most valiant that ever were, S. Augustine 
and S. Jerome. David had said (Ps. xlvii. i) : The 
Lord is great and exceedingly to he praised, in the city of 
our God in his holy mountain. " This is the city," 
says S. Augustine,* " set on a mountain, that cannot 
be hid. This is the light which cannot be concealed, 
nor put under a lushel, which is known to all, famous 
to all : " for it follows : With the joy of the whole earth 
is Mount Sion founded. And in fact how would Our 
Lord, who said that men do not light a candle and jmt 
it under a hushel (Matt. v. 15), have placed so many 
lights in the Church to go and hide them in certain 
unknown corners ? S. Augustine continues : t " This 
is the mountain which covers the whole face of the 
earth : this is the city of which it is said : A city set 
on a mountain cannot be hid. The Donatists (the 
Calvinists) come up to the mountain, and wlien we say 
to them, ascend ; — it is not a mountain, say they, and 
they rather strike their heads against it than establish 
their dwelling on it. Isaias, whom we read yesterday, 
— cried out (ii. 2) : In the last days the mo^mtain of 
the house of the Lord shcdl he prepared on the top of 

* In Ps, xlvii. 

t 111 Ep. I*" Joan. Tr. i. The order is slightly changed [Tr.]. 

CHAP. XI.] Mission. 65 

mountains^ and all nations shall flow into it. What 
is there so visible as a mountain ? — Yet there are 
mountains unknown because they are situated in a 
corner of the earth. Who amongst you knows 
Olympus ? No one, I am sure, any more or any less 
than its inhabitants know our Mount Giddaba. These 
mountains are in parts of the earth : but that mount 
not so ; for it has filled the whole face of the earth. 
The stone cut from the mountain, without any new 
operation (Dan. ii.), is it not Jesus Christ, springing 
from the race of the Jews without operation of 
marriage ? And did not this stone break in pieces 
all the kingdoms of the earth, that is, all the domina- 
tions of idols and demons ? — did it not increase until 
it filled the whole earth ? It is then of this moun- 
tain that is said the word, prepared on the top of moun- 
tains ; it is a mountain elevated above the heads of 
all mountains, and all nations shall flow into it. 
Who can get lost, or can miss this mountain ? Who 
knocks against and breaks his head against this ? 
Who fails to see the city set on a mountain ? Yet 
no ; be not astonished that it is unknown to those who 
hate the brethren, who hate the Church. For by 
this they walk in darkness, and know not where they 
go. They are separated from the rest of the universe, 
they are blind with anger." Such are the words of 
S. Augustine against the Donatists, but the present 
Church so perfectly resembles the first Church, and the 
heretics of our age those of old, that by merely chang- 
ing the names the ancient reasons press the Calvinists 
as closely home as they did those ancient Donatists. 
S. Jerome * enters into the fray from another side, 

* Contra Lucif. 14, 15. 

66 The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

which is just as dangerous to you as the former ; foi 
he makes it clearly evident that this pretended dis- 
persion, this retreat and hiddenness, destroy the glory 
of the cross of Our Lord. For, speaking to a schis- 
matic who had rejoined the Church, he says : " I 
rejoice with thee, and give thanks to Jesus Christ my 
God, in that thou hast turned back in good earnest 
from the heat of falsehood to that which is the sweet- 
ness and savour of the whole world. And say not 
like some do : ^ave me, Lord, for there is now no 
saint (Ps. xi. i); whose impious voice makes vain 
the cross of Christ, subjects the Son of God to the 
devil, and understands that grief which the Saviour 
has poured out over sinners to be expressed concern- 
ing all men. But let it never be that God should 
die for nothing, the mighty one is bound and despoiled 
of all, the word of God is accomplished : ask of me, 
and I vnll give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and 
the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession (Ps. ii. 8). 
Where, I pray you, are those too religious, yea, rather 
too profane persons, who declare there are more 
synagogues than churches ? How shall the cities of 
the devil be destroyed, and at last, that is, at the 
consummation of the world, how shall the idols be 
thrown down, if Our Lord has had no Church, or has 
had it only in Sardinia ? Certainly he is become 
too indigent." Yes, indeed, if Satan possess at the 
same time England, France, the East, the Indies, 
barbarous nations and every place, — how would the 
trophies of the cross be collected and squeezed into 
one corner of the world. And what would this great 
man say of those who not only deny that it has been 
general and universal, but say that it was only in 

CHAP. XL] Mission. 6y 

certain unknown persons, and will not specify one 
single little village where it was eighty years ago ? 
Is not this greatly to bring down the glorious trophies 
of Our Lord ? The heavenly Father, for the great 
humiliation and annihilation which Our Lord had 
undergone on the tree of the cross, had made his 
name so glorious that all knees were to bow and bend 
in reverence of him; but these people do not thus 
value the cross or the actions of the Crucified, taking 
from this account all the generations of a thousand 
years. The Father had given him as his inheritance 
many nations, because he had delivered his soul to 
death (Isa. liii. 1 2), and had been reputed with male- 
factors and robbers ; but these people make his in- 
heritance narrow indeed, and so cut away his portion 
that hardly during a thousand years shall he have a few 
secret followers, yea, shall have had none at all ! For 
I address myself to you, predecessors, who bear the 
name of Christian, and who have been in the true 
Church. Either you had the true faith or you had it 
not. If you had it not, unhappy ones, you are 
damned ; and if you had it why did you conceal it 
from others, why did you leave no memorials of it, 
why did you not set yourselves against impiety, ido- 
latry ? In no wise were you ignorant that God has 
recommended to each one his neighbour. Certainly 
with the heart we believe unto justice ; but for salvation 
we must make confession of our faith (Eom. x. 10), 
and how could you say : / have believed, therefore have 
I spoken (Ps. cxv. i)? miserable again for having 
so excellent a talent and hiding it in the earth. If 
the case is so ye are in the exterior darkness ; but if, 
on the contrary, Luther, Calvin, the true faith 

68 The Catholic Controversy. [part i. 

has always been published and continually preached 
by all our predecessors, yourselves are miserable who 
have a quite opposite one, and who, to find some 
excuse for your wills and your fancies, accuse all the 
Fathers either of impiety if they have believed ill, 
or of treachery if they have kept silence. 



Once when Absalom wished to form a faction and 
division against his good father David, he sat in the 
way near the gate, and said to each person that went 
by : There is no man appointed hy the king to hear 
thee ... that they would make me judge over the 
land, that all that have husiness might come to me, that I 
might do them justice.* Thus did he seduce the 
loyalty of the Israelites. how many Absaloms 
have there been in our age, who, to seduce and distort 
the people of Our Lord from obedience to the Church 
and her pastors, and to lead away Christian lealty 
into rebellion and revolt, have cried up and down the 
ways of Germany and of France : there is no one 
appointed by God to hear doubts concerning the faith 
and to answer them ; the Church itself, the rulers of 
the Church, have no power to determine what we are 
to hold as to the faith and what we are not ; we must 
seek other judges than the prelates, the Church can 
err in its decrees and rules. But what more hurtful 

* 2 Kings XV. 

CHAP. XII.] Mission. 69 

and audacious proposition could they make to Chris- 
tianity 4:han that ? If then the Church can err, 
Calvin, Luther, to whom shall I have recourse in 
my difficulties ? To the Scripture, say they. But 
what shall I, poor man, do, for it is precisely about 
the Scripture that my difficulty lies. I am not in 
doubt whether I must believe the Scripture or not ; for 
who knows not that it is the Word of Truth ? What 
keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this 
Scripture, is the conclusions to be drawn from it, 
which are innumerable and diverse and opposite on 
the same subject ; and everybody takes his view, one 
this, another that, though out of all there is but one 
which is sound : — Ah ! who will give me to know 
the good among so many bad ? who will tell me the 
real verity through so many specious and masked 
vanities. Everybody would embark on the ship of 
the Holy Spirit ; there is but one, and only that one 
shall reach the port, all the rest are on their way to 
shipwreck. Ah ! what danger am I in of erring ! 
All shout out their claims with equal assurance and 
thus deceive the greater part, for all boast that theirs 
is the ship. Whoever says that our Master has not 
left us guides in so dangerous and difficult a way, 
says that he wishes us to perish. Whoever says that 
he has put us aboard at the mercy of wind and tide, 
without giving us a skilful pilot able to use properly 
his compass and chart, says that the Saviour is want- 
ing in foresight. Whoever says that this good Father 
has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing 
that error was taught there, says that he intended to 
foster our vice and our ignorance. Who has ever heard 
of an academy in which everybody taught, and nobody 

70 The Catholic Controversy. [pakt i. 

was a scholar ? — such would be the Christian common- 
wealth if the Church can err. For if the Church her- 
self err, who shall not err ? and if each one in it err, 
or can err, to whom shall I betake myself for instruc- 
tion ? — to Calvin ? but why to him rather than to 
Luther, or Brentius, or Pacimontanus ? Truly, if I 
must take my chance of being damned for error, I will 
be so for my own not for another's, and will let these 
wits of mine scatter freely about, and maybe they will 
find the truth as quickly as anybody else. We should 
not know then whither to turn in our difficulties if the 
Church erred. But he who shall consider how per- 
fectly authentic is the testimony which God has given 
of the Church, will see that to say the Church errs is 
to say no less than that God errs, or else that he is 
willing and desirous for us to err ; which would be a 
great blasphemy. For is it not Our Lord who says : 
If thy hrother shall offend thee . . . tell the Churchy and 
if he will not hear the Church, let him he to thee as the 
heathen and the pvhlican (Matt, xviii.) Do you see 
how Our Lord sends us to the Church in our differ- 
ences, whatever they may be ? How much more 
in more serious offences and differences ! Certainly 
if by the order of fraternal correction I am obliged to 
go to the Church to effect the amendment of some evil 
person who has offended me, how much more shall I 
be obliged to denounce him who calls the whole Church 
Babylon, adulterous, idolatrous, perjured ? And so 
much the more because with this evil-mindedness of his 
he can seduce and infect a whole province ; — the vice 
of heresy being so contagious that it spreadeth like a 
cancer (2 Tim. ii. 17) for a time. When, therefore, I 
see some one who says that all our fathers, grand- 

CHAP. XII.] Mission, 71 

fathers, and great-grandfathers have fallen into idolatry, 
have corrupted the Gospel, and committed all the 
iniquities which follow upon the fall of religion, I will 
address myself to the Church, whose judgment every 
one must submit to. But if she can err then it is no 
longer I, or man, who will keep error in the world : 
it will be our God himself who will authorise it and 
give it credit, since he commands us to go to this 
tribunal to hear and receive justice. Either he does 
not know what is done there, or he wishes to deceive 
us, or true justice is really done there ; and the judg- 
ments are irrevocable. The Church has condemned 
Berengarius ; if any one would further discuss this 
matter, I hold him as a heathen and a publican, iu 
order to obey my Saviour, who leaves me no choice 
herein, but gives me this order : Ld him he, to thee, as 
a heathen and a puhlican. It is the same as S. Paul 
teaches when he calls the Church the pillar and ground 
of truth (i Tim. iii. 15). Is not this to say that truth 
is solidly upheld in the Church ? Elsewhere truth is 
only maintained at intervals, it falls often, but in the 
Church it is without vicissitude, unmovable, unshaken, 
in a word steadfast and perpetual. To answer that 
S. Paul's meaning is that Scripture has been put under 
the guardianship of the Church, and no more, is to 
weaken the proposed similitude too much. Eor to 
uphold the truth is a very different thing from guard- 
ing the Scripture. The Jews guard a part of the 
Scriptures, and so do many heretics ; but they are not 
on that account a column and ground of truth. The 
bark of the letter is neither truth nor falsehood, but 
according to the sense that we give it is it true or 
false. The truth consists in the sense, which is, as 

72 The Catholic Co7itroversy. [part i. 

it were, the marrow. And therefore if the Church 
were guardian of the truth, the sense of the Scripture 
would have been entrusted to her care, and it would 
be necessary to seek it with her, and not in the brain 
of Luther or Calvin or any private person. Therefore 
she cannot err, ever having the sense of the Scriptures. 
And in fact to place with this sacred depository the 
letter without the sense, would be to place therein the 
purse without the gold, the shell without the kernel, 
the scabbard without the sword, the box without the 
ointment, the leaves without the fruit, the shadow 
without the body. But tell me, if the Church 
has the care of the Scriptures, why did Luther 
take them and carry them away from her ? And 
why do you not receive at her hands the Machabees, 
Ecclesiasticus, and the rest, as much as the Epistle to 
the Hebrews ? For she protests that she has just as 
jealous a care of those as of these. In short, the 
words of S. Paul cannot suffer this sense that you 
would give them : he speaks of the visible Church, — 
for where would he direct his Timothy to hehave him- 
self? He calls it the house of Our Saviour; therefore 
it is well founded, well ordered, well sheltered against 
all storms and tempest of error. It is the pillar and 
ground of truth ; truth then is in it, it abides there, it 
dwells there ; who seeks it elsewhere loses it. It is 
so thoroughly safe and firm that all the gates of hell, 
that is, all tlie forces of the enemy, cannot make them- 
selves masters of it. And would not the place be taken 
by the enemy if error entered it, with regard to the 
things which are for the honour and service of the 
Master ? Our Lord is the head of the Church, — are 
you not ashamed to say that the body of so holy a 

CHAP, xii.] Mission. 73 

head is adulterous, profane, corrupt ? And say not 
that he is head of an invisible Church, for, since there 
is only a visible Church (as I have shown above) our 
Lord is the head of that ; as S. Paul says : And he 
hath made him head over all the Church (Eph. i 22) ; 
not over one Church out of two, as you imagine, 
but over the whole Church. Where two or three are 
gathered together in the name of the Lord, he is in the 
midst of them (Matt, xviii. 20). Ah ! who shall say 
that the assembly of the universal Church of all time 
has been abandoned to the mercy of error and im- 
piety ? I conclude then that when we see that the 
universal Church has been and is in the belief of some 
article, — whether we see it expressly in the Scripture, 
whether it is drawn therefrom by some deduction, or 
again by tradition, — we must in no way judge, nor 
dispute, nor doubt concerning it, but show obedience 
and homage to this heavenly Queen, as Christ com- 
mands, and regulate our faith by this standard : And 
if it would have been impious in the Apostles to con- 
test with their Master, so will it be in him who con- 
tests with the Church. For if the Father has said of 
the Son : Hear ye him, the Son has said of the Church : 
If any one will not hear the Church, let him he to the( 
as a heathen and a publican. 

74 The Catholic Controversy. [paet i. 



I AM not now concerned to show how your ministers 
have degraded the holiness and majesty of the Spouse 
of Jesus Christ. They cry out loud and clear that she 
has remained eight hundred years adulterous and anti- 
christian, from S. Gregory to Wicliffe — whom Beza 
considers the first restorer of Christianity. Calvin 
indeed would shield himself under a distinction, saying 
that the Church can err in things unnecessary for 
salvation, not in others. But Beza openly confesses 
that she has so far erred that she is no longer the 
Church. And is this not to err in things necessary 
for salvation, although he avows that outside the 
Church there is no salvation ? It follows then from 
what he says — let him turn and turn about as he 
likes — that the Church has erred in things necessary 
for salvation. For if outside the Church there is no 
salvation, and the Church has so gravely erred that 
she is no more the Church, certainly in her there is 
no salvation. Now she can only lose salvation by 
giving up the things necessary for salvation ; she has 
therefore erred in things necessary for salvation ; other- 
wise, having what is necessary for salvation, she would 
be the true Church, or else men can be saved outside 
the true Church, which is impossible. And Beza says 
that he learnt this way of speaking from those who 
instructed him in his pretended religion, that is, from 
Calvin. Indeed if Calvin thought that the Church of 

CHAP. XIII.] Mission. 75 

Eome had not erred in things necessary for salvation 
he would have done wrong to separate himself from it, 
for being able to secure his salvation in it, and true 
Christianity residing in it, he would have been obliged 
to stay therein for his salvation, which could not be in 
two different places. 

Perhaps I may be told that Beza says indeed that 
the Eoman Church, as it is now, errs in things neces- 
sary for salvation, and that therefore he left it ; but 
that he does not say the true Church has ever erred. 
He cannot, however, escape in that direction ; for what 
Church was there in the world two, three, four, five 
hundred years ago, save the Church Catholic and 
Eoman, just exactly as it is at present ? There was 
certainly no other, therefore it was the true Church — 
and yet it erred ; or there was no Church in the world 
— and in that case asfain he is constrained to confess 
that this disappearance of the Church arose from in- 
tolerable error, and error in things necessary for salva- 
tion. For as to that dispersion of the faithful, and 
that secret Church that he fancies he can bring 
forward, I have already sufficiently exposed the vain- 
ness of it. Besides the fact that when they confess 
the visible Church can err, they dishonour the Church 
to which Our Lord directs us in our difficulties, and 
which S. Paul calls the pillar and ground of truth. 
For it is only of the visible Church that these testi- 
monies are understood, unless we would say that Our 
Lord had sent us to speak to an invisible and unper- 
ceivable thing, a thing utterly unknown, or that S. 
Paul instructed his Timothy to converse in a society 
of which he had no knowledge. 

But is it not to violate all the respect and reverence 

76 The Catholic Controversy. [part i. 

due to this Queen, this spouse of the heavenly King, to 
have brought back into the realm almost all the rout 
which with such cost of blood, of sweat, and of 
travails, she had by solemn penal sentence banished 
and driven from these her confines, as rebels and as 
sworn enemies of her crown ? I mean this setting 
up so many heresies and false opinions which the 
Church had condemned, infringing thereby the sove- 
reignty of the Church, absolving those she had con- 
demned, condemning those whom she has absolved. 
Examples follow. 

Simon Magus said that God was the cause of sin, 
says Vincent of Lerins (Com. i""* c. 24). But 
Calvin and Beza say no less ; the former in the 
treatise on eternal predestination, the latter in his 
answer to Sebastian Castalio i''*" though they deny the 
word, they follow the things and substance of this 
heresy, — if heresy it is to be called, and not atheism. 
But of this so many learned men convict them by 
their own words that I will not stay upon it. 

Judas, says S. Jerome (in Matt. xxvi. 48), thought 
that the miracles he saw worked by the hand of Our 
Lord were diabolical operations and illusions.t I know 
not whether your ministers think of what they are say- 
ing, but when we bring forward miracles, what do they 
say but that they are sorceries ? The glorious miracles 
which Our Lord does, men of this world, instead of 
opening your eyes, how do you speak of them ? | 

* See Claude de Sainctes on Atheism ; Francis Feuardent in liig 
Dialogues ; Bellarmine Controv. Tom. iv. Lib. ii. c. 6 [where find quota- 
tions from Calvin and Beza. Tr.] ; Hay in his (Questions and Answers. 

t Porphyry and Eunomius did the same. See Jerome adv. Vig. (lo). 

X See Calvin in Pref. to Instit. ; the Ceuturiators ; Peter Martyr 
(c. viii. Jud.). 

CHAP. XI.] Mission, "jj 

The Pepusians, says S. Augustine * (or Montanists 
and Phrygians, as the Code calls them), admitted 
women to the dignity of the priesthood. Who is 
ignorant that the English brethren hold their Queen 
Elizabeth to be head of their Church ? 

The Manicheans, says S. Jerome, t denied free- 
will : Luther has composed a book against free-will, 
which he calls de servo arhitrio : for Calvin I appeal 
to yourselves.J 

The Donatists believed that the Church was de- 
stroyed throughout the world and remained only 
with them (Aug. de Ecer. 69) : your ministers say the 
same. Again, they believe that a bad man cannot 
uaptize (lb. contra Pet. i. i); Wiclifi' said just as 
much, whom I bring forward in mockery, because 
Beza holds him for a glorious reformer. As to their 
lives, their virtues were such as these : they gave the 
most precious Sacrament to the dogs, they cast the 
holy Chrism upon the ground, they overthrew the 
altars, broke the chalices and sold then, they shaved 
the heads of the priests to take the sacred unction from 
them, they took and tore away the veil from nuns to 
degrade them.§ 

Jovinian, as S. Augustine testifies, || would have any 
kind of meat eaten at any time and against every 
prohibition ; he said that fasting was not meritorious 
before God, that the saved were equal in glory, that 

* De Hcer. 27. f Prsef. in Dial. c. Pelag. 

t The Saint adds in marginal note : Amb. Ep. 83 (Migne Ep. xxiii. ) : 
'* "We rightly condemn the Manicheans on account of their Sunday 

§ See Optatus de sch. Don. ii. 17, vi, i. 

II De Hcer. 82 : and see Jerome cont. Jov. 

"j^f The Catholic Controversy, [part i. 

virginity was no better than marriage, and that all 
sins were equal. Your masters teach the same. 

Vigilantius, as S. Jerome says,""'' denied that the 
relics of the Saints are to be honoured, that the prayers 
of the Saints are profitable, that priests should live in 
celibacy ; [he rejected] voluntary poverty. And what 
of all those things do you not deny ? t 

About the year 324, Eustathius despised the ordi- 
nary fasts of the Church, ecclesiastical traditions, the 
shrines of the holy Martyrs, and places dedicated to 
their honour. The account is given by the Council 
of Gangra (m 'prcef) in which for these reasons he was 
anathematized and condemned. See how long your 
reformers have been condemned. 

Eunomius would not yield to plurality, dignity, 
antiquity, as S. Basil testifies.| He said that faith 
alone was sufficient for salvation, and justified (Aug. 
licer. 54). As to the first point, see Beza in his 
treatise on the marks of the Church ; as to the second, 
does it not agree with that celebrated sentence of 
Luther's, § whom Beza holds to be a most glorious 
reformer : " You see how rich is the Christian, that is, 
the baptized man, who even if he wishes is not able 
to lose his salvation by any sins whatever, unless he 
refuses to believe " ? 

Aerius, according to S. Augustine (H. 53), denied 
prayer for the dead, ordinary fasts, and the superiority 
of a bishop over a simple priest. Your masters deny 
all this. 

* Cont. Vig. ; and Ep. ii. adv. eundem. 

t For this and preceding paragraph the Saint refers to Luther (da 
Nat. B.M. ; in i Pet. Ep. ; and Epithal) ; and Calvin {in Antid. 
S. vi.). 

+ Contra Eun. i. § de Cap. Bah. 1. 

CHAP. XIII.] Mission. 79 

Lucifer called his Church alone the true Church 
and said that the ancient Church had become, instead 
of a Church, a house of ill-fame : "''" and what do your 
ministers cry out all the day ? 

The Pelagians considered themselves assured and 
certain of their justice, promised salvation to the 
children of the faithful who died without Baptism, 
held that all sins were mortal.t As to the first, this 
is your ordinary language, and that of Calvin (m 
Antidoto, p. vi.). The second and third points are too 
ordinary with you to have anything said about them. 

The Manicheans rejected the sacrifices of the 
Church, and images,^ as your people also do. 

The Messalians despised Sacred Orders, Churches, 
Altars, as says S. Damascene (Hseres. 80) ; and S. 
Ignatius says : § They do not admit the Eucharist 
and the oblations, because they do not acknowledge 
the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, Jesus 
Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the Father 
mercifully raised up. Against whom S. Martial has 
written. || 

Berengarius taught the same, long afterwards, and 
was condemned by three Councils, in the two last of 
which he abjured his heresy. 

Julian the Apostate despised the sign of the cross. 
Xenaias did the same,1[ the Mahometans treat it no 
worse.** But he who would see this at full length, 
let him look at Sanders (viii. 5 7) and Bellarmine in 

* Jer. contra Lucif. 

t Jerome adv. Pel. ii. and iii. ; S. Aug. contra Jul. vi. 

X S. Aug. contra Faustum xx. 

§ Apud Theodoret. Dial. 3, called ImpatibUis. 

II Epist. ad Burdigalenses (apocryphal Tr.). 

IF Niceph. xvi. 27. ** Damas. 100. 

8o The Catholic Controversy. [part i. 

his Notes of the Church. Do you see the mould on 
which your ministers lay and form their reformation ? 
JSTow, ought not this agreement of opinions, or, to 
speak more rightly, this close parentage and consan- 
guinity which your first masters had with the most 
cruel, inveterate, and sworn enemies of the Church, — 
ought not this alone to dissuade you from following 
them, and to bring you under the right banner ? I 
have not cited one heresy which was not held as such 
by that Church which Calvin and Beza confess to 
have been the true Church, — that is, in the first five 
hundred years of Christianity. Ah ! I pray you, is it 
not to trample the majesty of the Church under foot 
thus to produce as reformations, and necessary and holy 
reparations, what she has so greatly abominated when 
she was in her purest years, and which she had 
crushed down as impiety, as the ruin and corruption of 
true doctrine ? The delicate stomach of this heavenly 
Spouse had scarcely been able to bear the violence of 
these poisons, and had rejected them with such energy 
that many veins of her martyrs had burst with the 
effort, and now you offer them to her again as a 
precious medicine ! The Fathers whom I have quoted 
would never have placed them on the list of heretics 
if they had not seen the body of the Church hold them 
as such. These Fathers being in the highest rank of 
orthodoxy, and closely united with all the other Catholic 
bishops and doctors of their time, we see that what 
they held to be heretical was so in reality. Picture 
to yourselves this venerable antiquity in heaven round 
about the Master, who regards your reformers and 
their works. Those have gained their crown com- 
batting the opinions which the ministers adore; they 

CHAP, xiil] Mission. 8i 

have held as heretics those whose steps you follow. 
Do you think that what they have judged to be error, 
heresy, blasphemy, in the Arians, the Manichteans, 
Judas, they now judge to be sanctity, reformation, 
restoration ? Who sees not that this is the greatest 
contempt for the majesty of the Church that can be 
shown ? If you would be in the succession of the 
true and holy Church of those first centuries, do not 
then oppose what it has so solemnly established and 
instituted. Nobody can be partly heir and partly not. 
Accept the inheritance courageously ; the charges are 
not so great but that a little humility will give a good 
account of them — to say good-bye to your passions, 
and to give up the difference which you have with 
the Church : the honours are infinite — the being heirs 
of God, co-heirs of Jesus Christ in the happy society 
of all the Blessed ! 


PART 11. 
Zhc IRule of Jfattb. 


If the advice which St. John ^ gives to Christians, 
not to believe every spirit, was ever necessary, it is so 
now more than ever, when so many different and con- 
trary spirits in Christendom demand belief, on the 
strength of the Word of God ; in whose name we 
have seen so many nations run astray in every direc- 
tion, each one after its humour. As the common 
sort admire comets and wandering fires, and believe 
that they are true stars and bright planets, while 
better-informed people know well that they are only 
airy flames which float over some vapour as long as 
there is anything to feed them, which always leave 
some ill effect behind them, and which have nothing 
in common with the incorruptible stars save the 
coarse light which makes them visible ; so the miser- 
able people of our age, seeing in certain foolish men 
the glitter of human subtlety and a false gleam of 
the Word of God, have believed that here were 
heavenly truths, and have given heed to them ; 

* I Ep. iv. I. 

iNTROD.] The Rule of Faith. 83 

although men of worth and judgment testified that 
they were only earthly inventions, which would in 
time disappear, nor leave other memorial of them 
than the sense of the many miseries which follow. 
how men ought to have abstained from giving 
themselves up to these spirits, and before following 
them to have tried whether they were of God or no ! 
Ah ! there is not wanting a touchstone to distinguish 
the base metal of their counterfeits. For he who 
caused us to be told that we must 'prove the spirits, 
would not have done so unless he knew that we 
had infallible rules to tell the holy from the false 
spirit. We have such rules, and nobody denies it. 
But these deceivers produce rules which they can 
falsify and adapt to their pretensions, in order that, 
having rules in their hands, they may gain the credit 
of being masters in their craft by a visible sign 
under pretext of which they can form a faith and a 
religion such as they have imagined. It is then of 
the most extreme importance to know what are the 
true rules of our belief, for thereby we can easily 
discern heresy from the true religion : and this is 
what I intend to make clear in this Second Part. My 
plan is as follows. 

The Christian faith is grounded on the Word of 
God. This is what places it in the sovereign degree 
of certainty, as having the warrant of that eternal 
and infallible Truth. Faith which rests on anything 
else is not Christian. Therefore, the Word of God 
is the true rule of right-believing, as ground and rule 
are in this case one and the same thing. 

Since this rule does not regulate our faith save 
when it is applied, proposed and declared, and since 

84 T^he Catholic Co7ttroversy, [part. ii. 

this may be done well or ill, — therefore it is not 
enough to know that the Word of God is the true 
and infallible rule of right-believing, unless I know 
what Word is God's, where it is, who has to propose, 
apply, and declare it. It is useless for me to know 
that the Word of God is infallible, and for all this 
knowledge I shall not believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
Son of the living God, unless I am certified that this 
Word is revealed by the heavenly Eather : and even 
when I come to know this I shall not be out of 
doubt if I do not know how this is to be understood, 
— whether of an adoptive filiation in the Arian sense, 
or a natural filiation in the Catholic. 

There is need, then, besides this first and funda- 
mental rule the Word of God, of another, a second 
rule, by which the first may be rightly and duly 
proposed, applied, and declared. And in order that 
we may not be subject to hesitation and uncertainty, 
it is necessary not only that the first rule, namely, 
the Word of God, but also the second, which pro- 
poses and applies this rule, be absolutely infallible ; 
otherwise we shall always remain in suspense and 
in doubt as to whether we are not being badly 
directed and supported in our faith and belief, not 
now by any defect in the first rule, but by error 
and defect in the proposition and application thereof. 
Certainly the danger is equal, — either of getting out 
of rule for want of a right rule, or getting out of rule 
for want of a regular and right application of the rule 
itself. But this infallibility which is required as well 
in the rule as in its application, can have its source 
only in God, the living and original fountain of all 
truth. Let us proceed. 

iNTROD.] The Rtde of Faith. 85 

Now as God revealed his Word, and spoke, or 
preached, by the mouth of the Fathers and Prophets, 
and at last by his own Son, then by the Apostles 
and Evangelists, whose tongues were but as the pens 
of scribes writing rapidly, God thus employing men 
to speak to men ; so to propose, apply, and declare 
this his Word, he employs his visible Spouse as his 
mouthpiece and the interpreter of his intentions. It 
is God then who rules over Christian belief, but with 
two instruments, in a double way : (i) by his Word 
as by a formal rule ; (2) by his Church as by the hand 
of the measurer and rule-user. Let us put it thus : 
God is the painter, our faith the picture, the colours 
are the Word of God, the brush is the Church. Here 
then are two ordinary and infallible rules of our 
belief : the Word of God, which is the fundamental 
and formal rule; the Church of God, which is the 
rule of application and explanation. 

I consider in this second part both the one and the 
other, but to make my exposition of them more clear 
and more easy to handle, I have divided these two 
rules into several, as follows. 

The Word of God, the formal rule of our faith, is 
either in Scripture or in Tradition. I treat first of 
Scripture, then of Tradition. 

The Church, the rule of application, expresses her- 
self either in her universal body by a general belief 
of all Christians, or in her principal and nobler parts 
by a consent of her pastors and doctors ; and in this 
latter way it is either in her pastors assembled in one 
place and at one time, as in a general council, or in 
her pastors divided as to place and time, but assembled 
in union and correspondence of faith ; or, in fine, this 

86 The Catholic Controversy, [paet h. 

same Church expresses herself and speaks by her head- 
minister.'"' And these are four explaining and apply- 
ing rules of our faith ; — the Church as a whole, the 
General Council, the consent of the Fathers, the Pope. 

Other rules than these we are not to seek ; these 
are enough to steady the most inconstant. But God, 
who takes pleasure in the abundance of his favours, 
wishing to come to the help of the weakness of men, 
goes so far as to add sometimes to these ordinary 
rules (I refer to the establishment and founding of the 
Church) an extraordinary rule, most certain and of 
great importance, — namely, miracles — an extraordinary 
testimony of the true application of the Divine Word. 

Lastly, natural reason may also be called a rule of 
right-believing, but negatively and not affirmatively. 
For if any one should speak thus : such a proposition 
is an article of faith, therefore it is according to 
natural reason : — this affirmative consequence would 
be badly drawn, since almost all our faith is outside 
of and above our reason. But if he were to say : this 
is an article of faith, therefore it cannot be against 
natural reason : — the consequence is good. For natural 
reason and faith, being supported on the same prin- 
ciples, and starting from one same author, cannot be 
contrary to each other. 

Here then are eight rules of faith : Scripture, Tradi- 
tion, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, 
miracles, natural reason. The two first are only a 
formal rule, the four following are only a rule of appli- 
cation, the seventh is extraordinary, and the eighth 
negative. Or, he who would reduce all these rules to 

* CTief ministeriel. That is, ruler of the Church, but ruling as prime 
minister of Christ. [Tr.] 

ART. 1. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith, 87 

a single one, would say that the sole and true rule of 
right- believing is the Word of God preached by the 
Church of God. 

Now I undertake here to show, as clearly as the 
light of day, that your reformers have violated and 
forced all these rules (and it would be enough to show 
that they have violated one of them, since they are 
so closely connected that he who violates one violates 
all the others) ; in order that, as you have seen in the 
first part, that they have taken you out of the bosom 
of the true Church by schism, so you may know in 
this second part, that they have deprived you of the 
light of the true faith by heresy, to drag you after 
their illusions. And I keep ever in the same posi- 
tion : for I prove firstly that the rules which I bring 
forward are most certain and infallible, then I prove, 
so closely that you can touch it with your hand, that 
your doctors have violated them. Here now I appeal 
to you in the name of the Almighty God, and summon 
you on his part, to judge justly. 







I WELL know, thank God, that Tradition was before 
all Scripture, since a good part of Scripture itself is 

SS The Catholic Controversy, [part n. 

only Tradition reduced to writing, with an infallible 
assistance of the Holy Spirit. But, since the authority 
of Scripture is more easily received by the reformers 
than that of Tradition, I begin with the former in 
order to get a better entrance for my argument. 

Holy Scripture is in such sort the rule of the Chris- 
tian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obliga- 
tion to believe most exactly all that it contains, and 
not to believe anything which may be ever so little 
contrary to it: for if Our. Lord himself has sent the 
Jews to it '^ to strengthen their faith, it must be a 
most safe standard. The Sadducees erred because 
they did not understand the Scriptures ; t they would 
have done better to attend to them, as to a light 
shining in a dark place, according to the advice of 
S. Peter,J who having himself heard the voice of the 
Father in the Transfiguration of the Son, bases himself 
more firmly on the testimony of the Prophets than on 
this experience. When God says to Josue : Let not 
the hook of this law depart from thy month^ he shows 
clearly tliat he willed him to have it always in his 
mind, and to let no persuasion enter which should be 
contrary to it. But I am losing time ; this disputa- 
tion would be needful against free-thinkers {les Liher- 
tins) ; we are agreed on this point, and those who are 
so mad as to contradict it, can only rest their contra- 
diction on the Scripture itself, contradicting themselves 
before contradicting the Scripture, using it in the very 
protestation which they make that they will not 
use it. 

* John V. 39. t Mark xii. 24. X ^V' 2, i- i9- § Jos. i. 8. 

ART. I. c. II.] The Rule of Faith. 89 



On this point, again, I will scarcely delay. Tiie Holy 
Scripture is called the Book of the Old and of the New 
Testament. When a notary has drawn a contract or 
other deed, when a testament is confirmed by the 
death of the testator, there must not be added, with- 
drawn, or altered, one single word under penalty of 
falsification. Are not the Holy Scriptures the true 
testament of the eternal God, drawn by the notaries 
deputed for this purpose, duly sealed and signed with 
his blood, confirmed by death ? Being such, how can 
we alter even the smallest point without impiety ? 
"A testament," says the great Ulpian, "is a just 
expression of our will as to what we would have done 
after our death." '^ Our Lord by the Holy Scriptures 
shows us what we must believe, hope for, love, and do, 
and this by a true expression of his will ; if we add, 
take away, or change, it will no longer be the true 
expression of God's will. For our Lord having duly 
expressed in Scripture his will, if we add anything of 
our own we shall make the statement go beyond the 
will of the testator, if we take anything away we shall 
make it fall short, if we make changes in it we shall 
set it awry, and it will no longer correspond to the 
will of the author, nor be a correct statement. When 
two things exactly correspond, he who changes the one 
destroys the equality and the correspondence between 
them. If it be a true statement, whatever right have 

* Test. i. IT. Qai tc&t. facere posmnt. 

90 The Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

we to alter it ? Our Lord puts a value on the iotas, 
yea, the mere little points and accents of his holy 
words. How jealous then is he of their integrity, and 
what punishment shall they not deserve who violate 
this integrity ! Brethren^ says S. Paul * (/ s]peak after 
the manner of man), yet a man's testament^ if it he con- 
firmed, no man despiseth, nor addeth to it. And to 
show how important it is to learn the Scripture in its 
exactness he gives an example. To Abraham were the 
promises made, and to his seed. He says not and to his 
seeds as of many, hut as of one ; and to thy seed, who is 
Christ. See, I beg you, how the change from singular 
to plural would have spoilt the mysterious meaning of 
this word. 

The Ephrathites [Ephraimites] said Sibolleth, not 
forgetting a single letter, but because they did not 
pronounce it thickly enough, the Galaadites slew them 
at the fords of Jordan.t The simple difference of 
pronunciation in speaking, and in writing the mere 
transposition of one single point on the letter sdn 
caused the ambiguity, and changing the janin into 
semol, instead of an ear of wheat expressed a weight 
or a burden. Whosoever alters or adds the slightest 
accent in the Scripture is a sacrilegious man, and 
deserves the death of him who dares to mingle the 
profane with the sacred. 

The Arians, as S. Augustine tells us,J corrupted this 
sentence of S. John i. i : In priiicipio erat verhum, et 
verhum erat apiid JDeum, et Deus erat verhum. Hoc 
erat in princijno apud Deum : by simply changing a 
point. For they read it thus : M verhum erat apiui 

* Gal. iii. 15, 1 6. t Judges xii. 6. 

t De doc. Chris, iii. 2. 

AETi. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith. 91 

Deum et Deios erect Verbum hoc, &c. : instead of : 
Deus erat verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum : 
They placed the full stop after the erat, instead of 
after the verbum. They so acted for fear of having to 
grant that the Word was God ; so little is required to 
change the sense of God's Word. When one is hand- 
ling glass beads, if two or three are lost, it is a small 
matter, but if they were oriental pearls the loss would 
be great. The better the wine the more it suffers from 
the mixture of a foreign flavour, and the exquisite sym- 
metry of a great picture will not bear the admixture 
of new colours. Such is the conscientiousness with 
which we ought to regard and handle the sacred 
deposit of the Scriptures. 



The Council of Trent gives these books as sacred, 
divine and canonical : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four 
Books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras 
(a first, and a second which is called of Nehemias), 
Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, one hundred and fifty 
Psalms of David, Proverbs, Fcclesiastes, the Canticle 
of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias 
with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos, 
Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, 
Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachy, two of Machabees, first 
and second : of the New Testament, four Gospels, — S. 

92 The Catholic Controversy. [part il 

Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John, — the Acts of the 
Apostles by S. Luke, fourteen Epistles of S. Paul, — to 
the Eomans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, 
to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, 
two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to 
Philemon, to the Hebrews, — two of S. Peter, three of 
S. John, one of S. James, one of S. Jude, and the 
Apocalypse. The same books were received at the 
Council of Florence, and long before that, at the third 
Council of Carthage about twelve hundred years ago. 

These books are divided into two ranks. For of 
some, both of the Old and of the New Testament, it 
was never doubted but that they were sacred and 
canonical : others there are about whose authority the 
ancient Fathers doubted for a time, but afterwards 
they were placed with those of the first rank. 

Those of the first rank in the Old Testament are : 
the five of Moses, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings, 
two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras and JSTehemias, 
Job, one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle- 
siastes. Canticles, the four greater Prophets, the twelve 
lesser Prophets. These were formed into the canon 
by the great synod at which Esdras was present, and 
to which he was scribe ; and no one ever doubted of 
their authority without being at once considered a 
heretic, as our learned Genebrard fully proves in his 
Chronology.* The second rank contains the following : 
Esther, Baruch, a part of Daniel (the history of Susanna, 
the Canticle of the Three Children, and the history of 
the death of the dragon in the fourteenth chapter), 
Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees i 
and 2. And as to these there is a great probability 

* Ad anu. 3638. 

ART. 1. 0. III. J The Rule of Faith. 93 

in the opinion of the same Doctor Genebrard * that in 
the meeting which was held at Jerusalem to send the 
seventy-two interpreters into Egypt, these books, 
which were not in existence when Esdras made the 
first canon, were placed on the canon, at least tacitly, 
because they were sent with the others to be translated, 
except the Machabees, which were received in another 
meeting afterwards, wherein the preceding were again 
approved. But however the case may be, as the 
second canon was not made so authentically as the 
first, this placing on the canon could not procure them 
an entire and unquestionable authority among the 
Jews, nor make them equal with the books of the 
first rank. 

Coming to the books of the New Testament, I say 
that in the same way there are some of the first rank, 
which have always been acknowledged and received 
as sacred and canonical. These are the four Gospels, 
S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John, all the Epistles 
of S. Paul except that to the Hebrews, one of S. 
Peter, one of S. John. Those of the second rank 
are the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of S. James, 
the second of S. Peter, the second and third of S. 
John, that of S. Jude, the i6th chapter of S. Mark, 
as S. Jerome says, and S. Luke's history of the 
bloody sweat of Our Lord in the garden of Olives, 
according to the same S. Jerome ; in the eighth 
chapter of S. John there has been a doubt concerning 
the history of the woman taken in adultery, or at 
least some suspect that it has been doubted, and 
concerning verse seven of the last chapter of S. 

* lb. seqq. et ad aim. 3860. He quotes S. Epiph., de mens, et pond., 
and Josephus, contra App. ii. S. Epiph. speaks only of Baruch. 

94 TJ^^ Catholic Controversy, [part h. 

John's First Epistle. These are, as far as we know, 
the books and parts of books concerning which it 
appears there was anciently some doubt. And these 
were not of undoubted authority in the Church at 
first, but as time went on they were at length recog- 
nised as the sacred work of the Holy Spirit, and not 
all at once but at different times. And first, besides 
those of the first rank, whether of the new or of the 
Old Testament, about the year 364 there were re- 
ceived at the Council of Laodicea * (which was after- 
wards approved in the sixth general Council f), the book 
of Esther, the Epistle of S. James, the Second of S. 
Peter, the Second and Third of S. John, that of S. 
Jude, and the Epistle to the Hebrews as the fourteenth 
of S. Paul. Then some time afterwards at the third 
Council of Carthage J (at which S. Augustine assisted, 
and which was confirmed in the sixth general Council 
in Trullo), besides those of the second rank just 
mentioned, there were received into the canon, as of 
full authority, Tobias, Judith, First and Second Macha- 
bees. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Apocalypse. 
But of all those of the second rank, the book of 
Judith was first received and acknowledged as divine, 
in the first General Council of Nice, as S. Jerome 
witnesses in his preface to this book. Such is the 

* Can. Ix. 

t i.e. in Canon ii. of the Council in Tridlo (or Quinisext), which is 
called by the Greeks the sixth General Council, as being a continuation 
or supplement of it. Such canons of this Council as were not opposed 
to previous decrees were approved by Rome. See Hefele Cone. Bk. xvii. 
The Saint's words are well defended by Alibrandi in the processus. 
Respons. pp. 80, 81. [Tr.] 

t i.e. in Canon xxxvi. of the Council of Hippo, approved in third 
Council of Carthage. [Tr.] 

ART. I. cm.] The Rule of Faith. 95 

way in which the two ranks were brought together 
into one, and were made of equal authority in the 
Church of God, but progressively and with succession, 
as a beautiful morning rising, which little by little 
lights up our hemisphere. 

Thus was drawn up in the Council of Carthage, 
that same ancient list of the canonical books which 
has ever since been in the Catholic Church, and which 
was confirmed in the sixth general Council, at the 
great Council of Florence 160 years ago for the union 
of the Armenians by the whole Church both Greek 
and Latin, in our age by the Council of Trent, and 
which was followed by S. Augustine."^ Before the 
Council of Carthage they were not all received as 
canonical by any decree of the general Church. I 
had almost forgotten to say that you must not there- 
fore make a difficulty against what I have just laid 
down because Baruch is not quoted by name in the 
Council of Carthage. For since Baruch was secretary 
of Jeremias, the book of Baruch was reckoned by the 
ancients as an accessory or appendix of Jeremias, 
being comprised under this ; as that excellent theolo- 
gian Bellarmine proves in his Controversies. But it is 
enough for me to have said thus : my brief outline 
is not obliged to dwell on every particular. In n 
word, all these books, whether of first or second rank, 
with all the parts, are equally certain, sacred and 

* l)e doc. Chr. ii. 8. 

96 The Catholic Controversy, [paut h. 



Such are the sacred and canonical books which the 
Church has unanimously received and acknowledged 
during twelve hundred years. And by what authority 
have these new reformers dared to wipe out at one 
stroke so many noble parts of the Bible ? They have 
erased a part of Esther, and Baruch, Tobias, Judith, 
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees. Who has told 
them that these books are not legitimate, and not to 
be received ? Why do they thus dismember this 
sacred body of the Scriptures ? 

Here are their principal reasons, as far as I have 
been able to gather them from the old preface to the 
books which they pretend to be apocryphal, printed 
at Neufchastel, in the translation of Peter Piobert, 
otherwise Olivetanus, a relation and friend of Calvin, 
and again from the newer preface placed to the same 
books by the professors and pretended pastors of the 
Church of Geneva, 1588. 

(i.) They are not found either in Hebrew or 
Chaldaic, in which languages they (except perhaps the 
Book of Wisdom) were originally written : therefore it 
would be very difficult to restore them. (2.) They are 
not received as legitimate by the Jews. (3.) Nor by 
the whole Church. (4). S. Jerome says that they are 
not considered proper for corroborating the authority 
of Ecclesiastical doctrines. (5.) Canon Law condemns 

ART. I. 0. IV. J The Rule of Faith. 97 

them ; (6.) as does also the Gloss, which says they 
are read, but not generally, as if to say that they are 
not approved generally everywhere. (7.) They have 
been corrupted and falsij&ed, as Eusebius says ; * (8.) 
notably the Machabees, (9.) and particularly the Second 
of Machabees, which S. Jerome says he did not find 
in Hebrew. Such are the reasons of Olivetanus. ( i o.) 
" There are in them many false things," says the new 
preface. Let us now see what these fine researches 
are worth. 

(i.) And as to the first, — are you unwilling to re- 
ceive these books because they are not in Hebrew or 
Chaldaic ? Eeceive Tobias then, for S. Jerome attests 
that he translates it from Chaldaic into Latin, in the 
Epistle which you yourselves quote,t which makes me 
think you are hardly in good faith. And why not 
Judith, which was also written in Chaldaic, as the 
same S. Jerome says in the prologue ? And if S. 
Jerome says he was not able to find the second of 
Machabees in the Hebrew, — what has that to do with 
the first ? This then receive as it deserves ; we will 
treat of the second afterwards. I say the same to you 
about Ecclesiasticus, which S. Jerome had and found 
in Hebrew, as he says in his preface on the books of 
Solomon. Since, then, you reject these books written 
in Hebrew or Chaldaic equally with the others which 
are not written in one of those languages, you will 
have to find another pretext than that which you 
have alleged for striking out these books from the 
canon. When you say that you reject them because 
they are not written in Hebrew or Chaldaic, this is 
not your real reason ; for you would not reject on this 

* Hist. Eccl. iv. 22. t E]^. ad Chrom. et Heliod. 

HI. G 

98 The Catholic Controversy. [part il 

ground Tobias, Judith, the first of Machabees, Ecclesi- 
asticus, which are written either in Hebrew or Chaldaic. 
But let us now speak in defence of the other books, 
which are written in a language other than that which 
you would have. Where do you find that the rule 
for rightly receiving the Holy Scriptures is that they 
should be written in these languages rather than in 
Greek or Latin ? You say that nothing must be 
received in matter of religion but what is written ; 
and you bring forward in your grand preface the say- 
ing of jurisconsults : " We blush to speak without a 
law." Do you not consider that the controversy 
about the validity or invalidity of the Scriptures is 
one of the most important in the sphere of religion ? 
Well then, either remain confounded, or else produce 
the Holy Scripture for the negative which you main- 
tain. The Holy Spirit certainly declares himself as 
well in Greek as in Chaldaic. There would be, you 
say, great difi&culty in restoring them, since we do not 
possess them in their original language, and it is this 
which troubles you. But, for God's sake, tell me who 
told you that they were lost, corrupted or altered, so 
as to need restoration ? You take for granted, perhaps, 
that those who have translated them from the originals 
have translated badly, and you would have the original 
to compare them and judge them. Make your mean- 
ing clear then, and say that they are therefore apocry- 
phal because you cannot yourselves be the translators 
of them from the original, and cannot trust the judg- 
ment of the translator. So there is to be nothing 
certain except what you have had the control of. 
Show me this rule of certitude in the Scripture. 
Further, are you fully assured that you have the 

ART. I. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith, 99 

Hebrew texts of the books of the first rank, as pure 
and exact as they were in the time of the Apostles 
and of the Seventy ? Beware of errors. You certainly 
do not always follow them, and you could not, with 
good conscience. Show me this again in the Holy 
Scripture. Here, therefore, is your first reason most 
wanting in reason. 

(2.) As to your saying that these books which you 
call apocryphal are not received by the Jews, you say 
nothing new or important. S. Augustine loudly ex- 
claims : * "It is the Catholic Church which holds the 
Books of Machabees as canonical, not the Jews." 
Thank God, we are not Jews, we are Catholics. Show 
me from Scripture that the Christian Church has not 
as much power to give authority to the sacred books 
as the Mosaic may have had. There is not in this 
either Scripture or reason to show for it. 

(3.) Yes, but the whole of the Church itself does 
not receive them, you say. Of what Church are you 
speaking ? Unquestionably the Catholic, which is the 
true Church, receives them, as S. Augustine has just 
now borne witness to you, and he repeats it, citing 
the Council of Carthage.t The Council in Trullo the 
6th General, that of Florence, and a hundred ancient 
authors are [witnesses] thereto. I name S. Jerome, 
who witnesses for the book of Judith that it was re- 
ceived in the first Council [of Mce]. Perhaps you 
would say that of old time some Catholics doubted of 
their authority. This is clear from the division which 
I have made above. But does their doubt then make 

* De civ. Dei. xviii. 36. 

t The necessary references and explanations are given in notes to 
preceding chapter. [Tr.] 

loo The Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

it impossible for their successors to come to a con- 
clusion ? Are we to say that if one cannot decide at 
the very first glance one must always remain wavering, 
uncertain, and irresolute ? Was there not for some 
time an uncertainty about the Apocalypse and Esther? 
You would not dare to deny it: my witnesses for 
Esther are too sound, — S. Athanasius * and S. Gregory 
Nazianzen : t for the Apocalypse, the Council of 
Laodicea : — and yet you receive them. Either receive 
them all, since they are in equal position, or receive 
none, on the same ground. But in God's name what 
humour takes you that you here bring forward the 
Church, whose authority you hold to be a hundred 
times more uncertain than these books themselves, 
and which you say to have been erring, inconstant, — 
yea apocryphal, if apocryphal means hidden ? You 
only prize it to despise it, and to make it appear in- 
constant, now recognising, now rejecting these books. 
But there is a great difference between doubting 
whether a thing is to be accepted and rejecting it. 
Doubt does not hinder a subsequent resolution, indeed 
it is its preliminary stage. To reject presupposes a 
decision. Inconstancy does not consist in changing a 
doubt into resolution, but in changing from resolution 
to doubt. It is not instability to become settled after 
wavering, but to waver after being settled. The 
Church then, having for a time left these books in 
doubt, at length has received them with authentic 
decision, and you wish that from this resolution she 
should return into doubt. It belongs to heresy and 
not to the Church thus to advance from bad to worse. 

But of this elsewhere. ^*:\n,^oT j . ;- 

* In Synopsi. ^f ' V^ t In cariri. <^ t^ sac. 


AET. I. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith, loi 

(4.) As for S. Jerome whom you allege, this is not 
to the purpose, since in his time the Church had not 
yet come to the resolution which she has come to 
since, as to the placing of these books on the canon, 
except that of Judith. 

(5.) And the canon Sancta Romana, which is of 
Gelasius I. — I think you have taken it by guess, for 
it is entirely against you ; because, while censuring 
the apocryphal books, it does not name one of those 
which we receive, but on the contrary witnesses that 
Tobias and the Machabees were publicly received in 
the Church. 

(6.) And the poor Gloss does not deserve to be thus 
glossed, since it clearly says that these books are read, 
though not perhaps generally. This " perhaps " 
guards it from stating what is false, and you have 
forgotten it. And if it reckon the books in question as 
apocryphal, this is because it considered that apocry- 
phal meant the having no certain author, and there- 
fore it includes as apocryphal the Book of Judges : 
and its statements are not so authentic that they must 
pass as decisive judgment ; after all it is but a Gloss. 

(7.) And these falsifications which you allege are 
not in any way sufficient to abolish the authority of 
these books, because they have been justified and have 
been purified from all corruption before the Church 
received them. Truly, all the books of Holy Scrip- 
ture have been corrupted by the ancient enemies of 
the Church, but by the providence of God they have 
remained free and pure in the Church's hands, as a 
sacred deposit ; and they have never been able to spoil 
so many copies as that , there should not remain 
enough to restore the others. 

I02 The Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

(8.) But you would have the Machabees, at any rate, 
fall from our hands, when you say that they have been 
corrupted ; but since you only advance a simple asser- 
tion I will return your pass by a simple negation. 

(9.) S. Jerome, you say, could not find the Second 
in Hebrew ; and although it is true that it is only as 
it were a letter which [those of] Israel sent to their 
Jewish brethren who were then out of Judea, and 
although it is written in the best known and most 
general language of those times, does it thence follow 
that it is not worthy to be received ? The Egyptians 
used the Greek language much more than the Hebrew, 
as Ptolemy clearly showed when he procured the 
version of the Seventy. This is why this second book 
of Machabees, which was like an epistle or commen- 
tary sent for the consolation of the Jews who were in 
Egypt, was written in Greek rather than in Hebrew. 

( I o.) It remams for the new preachers to point out 
those falsehoods of which they accuse these books; 
which they will in truth never do. But I see them 
coming, bringing forward the intercession of Saints, 
prayer for the dead, free-will, the honouring of relics, 
and similar points, which are expressly confirmed in 
the Books of Machabees, in Ecclesiasticus, and in 
other books which they pretend to be apocryphal. 
For God's sake take care that your judgment does not 
deceive you. Why, I pray you, do you call false, things 
which the whole of antiquity has held as articles of 
faith ? Why do you not rather censure your fancies 
which will not embrace the doctrine of these books, 
than censure these books which have been received 
for so long a time because they do not jump with 
your humour ? Because you will not believe what 

ART. I. 0. v.] The Rtiie of Fait k. 103 

the books teach, you condemn it; — why do you not 
rather condemn your presumption which is incredulous 
to their teaching ? 

Here now, I think, are all your reasons scattered to 
the winds, and you can bring no more. But we may 
well say : if it be thus lawful indifferently to reject 
or make doubtful the authority of those Scriptures, 
about which there was formerly a doubt, though the 
Church has now decided, it will be necessary to reject 
or to doubt of a great part of the Old and the New 
Testament. It is then no little gain to the enemy of 
Christianity, to have at one stroke scratched out of 
the Holy Scripture so many noble parts. Let us 



The crafty merchant keeps out the worst articles of 
his stock to offer first to buyers, to try if he can get 
rid of them and sell them to some simpleton. The 
reasons which these reformers have advanced in the 
preceding chapter are but tricks, as we have seen, 
which are used only as it were for amusement, to try 
whether some simple and weak brain will be content 
with them ; and, in reality, when one comes to the 
grapple, they confess that not the authority of the 

104 The Catholic Controversy, [part n. 

Church, nor of S. Jerome, nor of the Gloss, nor of the 
Hebrew, is cause sufficient to receive or reject any 
Scripture. The following is their protestation of faith 
presented to the King of France by the French pre- 
tended reformers. After having placed on the list, in 
the third article, the books they are willing to receive, 
they write thus in the fourth article : " We know 
these books to be canonical and a most safe rule of 
our faith, not so much by the common accord and con- 
sent of the Church, as by the testimony and interior 
persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which gives us to dis- 
cern them from the other ecclesiastical books." Quit- 
ting then the field of the reasons preceding, and 
making for cover, they throw themselves into the 
interior, secret, and invisible persuasion which they 
consider to be produced in them by the Holy Spirit. 

Now in truth it is judicious in them not to choose 
to rely in this point on the conmon accord and consent 
of the Church ; for this common accord has placed on 
the canon Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees, as much as 
and as early as the Apocalypse, and yet they choose to 
receive this and to reject those. Judith, made authori- 
tative by the grand and irreproachable Council of 
Nice, is blotted out by these reformers. They have 
reason then to confess that in the reception of canon- 
ical books, they do not accept the accord and consent 
of the Church, which was never greater or more solemn 
than in that first Council. 

But for God's sake notice the trick. " We know," 
say they, " these books to be canonical, not so much by 
the common consent and accord of the Church." To 
hear them speak, would you not say that at least to 
some extent they let themselves be guided by the 

ART. I. b. v.] The Rule of Faith. 105 

Church ? Their speech is not sincere : it seems as if 
they did not altogether refuse credit to the common 
accord of Christians, but only did not receive it as on 
the same level with their interior persuasion: — in 
reality, however, they hold it in no account at all : 
they are thus cautious in their language in order not to 
appear altogether arrogant and unreasonable. For, I 
ask you, if they deferred as little as you please to 
ecclesiastical authority, why would they receive the 
Apocalypse rather than Judith or the Machabees ? S. 
Augustine and S. Jerome are faithful witnesses to us 
that these have been unanimously received by the 
whole Catholic Church ; and the Councils of Carthage, 
in Trullo, Florence, assure us thereof. Why then do 
they say that they do receive these sacred books not 
so much by the common accord of the Church as by 
interior persuasion, since the common accord of the 
Church has neither value nor place in the matter ? 
It is their custom when they would bring forward 
some strange opinion not to speak clearly and frankly, 
in order to give the reader a better impression. 

And now let us look at the rule they have for 
distinguishing the canonical books from the other 
Ecclesiastical ones. " The testimony," they say, " and 
interior persuasion of the Holy Spirit." Good heavens ! 
what obscurity, what dense fog, what shades of night ! 
Are we not now fully enlightened in so important 
and grave a difference ! The question is how one 
can tell these canonical books ; we wish to have some 
rule to distinguish them ; — and they offer us some- 
thing that passes in the interior of the soul, which 
no one sees, nobody knows save the soul itself and its 
Creator ! 

io6 The Catholic Controversy, [part n. 

(i.) Show me clearly that when you tell me that 
such and such an inspiration exists in your conscience, 
you are not telling a lie. You say that you feel this 
persuasion witliin you. But why am I bound to 
believe you ? Is your word so powerful that I am 
forced under its authority to believe that you think 
and feel what you say. I am willing to hold you as 
good people enough, but when there is question of 
the foundations of my faith, as of receiving or rejecting 
the Ecclesiastical Scriptures, I find neither your ideas 
nor your words steady enough to serve me as a base. 

(2.) Show me clearly that these inspirations and 
persuasions that you pretend to have are of the Holy 
Spirit. Who knows not that the spirit of darkness 
very often appears in clothing of light ? 

(3.) Does this spirit grant his persuasions indiffer- 
ently to every one, or only to some particular persons ? 
If to every one, how does it happen that so many 
millions of Catholics have never perceived them, nor 
so many women, working-people, and otliers among 
yourselves ? If it is to some in particular, show 
them me, I beg you, — and why to these rather than 
to others ? What mark will you give me to know them 
and to pick them out from the crowd of the rest of 
men ? Must I believe in the first who shall say : 
here you are ? This would be to put ourselves too 
much at a venture and at the mercy of deceivers. 
Show me then some infallible rule to recognise these 
inspired ones, these persuaded ones, or else permit me 
to credit none of them. 

(4.) But, in conscience, do you think that the interior 
persuasion is a sufficient means to distinguish the 
Holy Scriptures, and put the nations out of doubt ? 

ART. I.e. v.] The Rule of Faith. 107 

How comes it then that Luther throws off the Epistle 
of S. James, which Calvin receives ? Try to harmonise, 
I pray you, this spirit and his persuasions, who per- 
suades the one to reject what he persuades the other 
to receive. You will say, perhaps, that Luther is 
mistaken. He will say as much of you. Which is 
to be believed ? Luther ridicules Ecclesiastes, he 
considers Job a fable. Will you oppose him your 
persuasion ? he will oppose you his. So this spirit, 
divided against himself, will leave you no other con- 
clusion except to grow thoroughly obstinate, each in 
his own opinion. 

(5.) Then what reason is there that the Holy Spirit 
should give inspirations as to what every one must 
believe to nobodies, to Luther, to Calvin, — they having 
abandoned without any such inspiration the Councils 
and the entire Church. We do not deny, to speak 
clearly, but that the knowledge of the true sacred 
books is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but we say that 
the Holy Spirit gives it to private individuals through 
the medium of the Church. Indeed if God had a 
thousand times revealed a thing to a private person we 
should not be obliged to believe it unless he stamped 
it so clearly that we could no longer call its validity 
in question. But we see nothing of this among your 
reformers. In a word, it is to the Church General 
that the Holy Spirit immediately addresses his in- 
spirations and persuasions, then, by the preaching of 
the Church, he communicates them to private persons. 
It is the Spouse in whom the milk is produced, then 
the children suck it from her breasts. But you 
would have it, on the contrary, that God inspires 
private persons, and by these means the Church, that the 

io8 The Catholic Controversy, [part il 

children receive the milk and the mother is nourished 
at their breasts ; — an absurdity. 

Now if the Scripture is not violated and its majesty 
offended by the setting up of these interior and 
private inspirations, it never was nor will be violated. 
For by this means the door is open to every one to 
receive or reject of the Scriptures what shall seem 
good to him. Why shall one allow Calvin to cut off 
Wisdom or the Machabees, and not Luther to remove 
the Epistle of S. James or the Apocalypse, or Castalio 
the Canticle of Canticles, or the Anabaptists the 
Gospel of S. Mark, or another person Genesis and 
Exodus ? If all protest that they have interior revela- 
tion why shall we believe one rather than another, so 
that this rule supposed to be sacred on account of the 
Holy Spirit, will be violated by the audacity of every 

Eecognise, I pray you, the stratagem. They have 
taken away all authority from Tradition, the Church, 
the Councils, — what more remains ? The Scripture. 
The enemy is crafty : if he would take all away at 
one stroke he would cause alarm. He starts a certain 
and infallible method of getting rid of it bit by bit, 
and very gradually: that is, this idea of interior in- 
spiration, by which everybody can receive or reject 
what seems good to him. And in fact consider a little 
how the process works itself out. Calvin removes and 
erases from the canon Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, Machabees ; Luther takes away the 
Epistle of S. James, of S. Jude, the Second of S. Peter, 
the Second and Third of S. John, the Epistle to the 
Hebrews ; he ridicules Ecclesiastes, and holds Job a 
fable. In Daniel, Calvin has erased the Canticle of 

ART. I. c. v.] The Rule of Faith. 109 

the Three Children, the history of Susanna and that 
of the dragon of Bel ; also a great part of Esther. In 
Exodus, at Geneva and elsewhere among these refor- 
mers, they have cut out the twenty-second verse of the 
second chapter, which is of such weight that neither 
the Seventy nor the other translators would ever have 
written it if it had not been in the original. Beza 
casts a doubt over the history of the adulteress in the 
Gospel of S. John (S. Augustine warns us that already 
the enemies of Christianity had erased it from their 
books ; but not from all, as S. Jerome says). In the 
mysterious words of the Eucharist, do they not try to 
overthrow the authority of those words : Which shall 
he shed for you, because the Greek text * clearly shows 
that what was in the chalice was not wine, but the 
blood of Our Saviour? As if one were to say in 
French : Ceci est la coupe du nouveau Testament en 
mon sangy laquelle sera respandiie pour vous. For in 
this way of speaking that which is in the cup must 
be the true blood, not the wine ; since the wine has 
not been shed for us but the blood, and the cup can- 
not be poured out except by reason of what it con- 
tains. What is the knife with which one has made 
so many amputations ? This tenet of private inspira- 
tion. What is it that makes you reformers so bold 
to cut away one this piece, another that, and the other 
something else ? The pretext of these interior persua- 
sions of the Spirit, which makes them supreme each 

* Not Tip in the Dative, agreeing with at/naTL, but to in the Nomi- 
native, agi'eeing with irorrfpiov. The Saint represents this in French 
by the change of gender. It is not clearly expressed in the Latin, and 
our English translation would seem to favour the wrong meaning, 
Shall he poured out is more correct, but still ambiguous. [Tr.] 

no The Catholic Controversy. [part ii. 

in his own idea, in judging as to the validity or in- 
validity of the Scriptures. On the contrary, gentlemen, 
S. Augustine protests : * " For my part, I would not 
believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic 
Church moved me thereto." And elsewhere : t " We 
receive the New and the Old Testament in that 
number of books which the authority of the Catholic 
Church determines." The Holy Spirit can give his 
inspirations as he likes, but as to the establishment of 
the public and general belief of the faithful, he only 
directs us to the Church. It is hers to propose which 
are the true Scriptures and which are not. 



But here is the difficulty. If these books were not 
from the beginning of undoubted authority in the 
Church, who can give them this authority ? In truth 
the Church cannot give truth or certitude to the 
Scripture, or make a book canonical if it were not so, 
but the Church can make a book known as canonical, 
and make us certain of its certitude, and is fully able 
to declare that a book is canonical which is not held 
as such by every one, and • thus to give it credit in 
Christendom ; not changing the substance of the book 
which of itself was canonical, but changing the per- 
suasion of Christians, making it quite assured where 
previously it had not been so. 

* Contra Ep, Fund. v. + Serm. de Temp. cxcL 

ART. I. c. VI.] The Rule of Faith. 1 1 1 

But how can the Church herself define that a book 
is canonical ? — for she is no longer guided by new 
revelations but by the old Apostolic ones, of which 
she has infallibility of interpretation. And if the 
Ancients have not had the revelation of the authority 
of a book, how then can she know it ? She considers 
the testimony of antiquity, the conformity which this 
book has with the others which are received, and the 
general relish which the Christian people find in it. 
For as we can know what is a proper and wholesome 
food for animals when we see them fond of it and 
feed on it with advantage, so, when the Church sees 
that the Christian people heartily relishes a book as 
canonical and gains good from it, she may know that 
it is a fit and wholesome meat for Christian souls ; 
and as when we would know whether one wine is of 
the same vintage as another we compare them, observ- 
ing whether the colour, the smell and the taste are 
alike in the two, so when the Church has properly 
decided that a book has a taste, colour and smell — 
holiness of style, doctrine and mysteries — like to the 
other canonical books, and besides has the testimony 
of many good and irreproachable witnesses of antiquity, 
she can declare the book to be true brother of the 
other canonical ones. And we must not doubt that 
the Holy Spirit assists the Church in this judgment : 
for your ministers themselves confess that God has 
given the Holy Scripturesi into her charge, and say 
that it is on this account S. Paul calls her the pillar 
and ground of the truth* And how would she guard 
them if she could not know and separate them from 
the mixture of other books ? And how important is 

* I Tim. iii. 15. 

112 The Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

it for the Church that she should be able to know 
in proper time and season which Scripture is holy 
and which not : for if she received such and such 
Scripture as holy and it was not, she would lead us 
into superstition ; and if she refused the honour and 
belief which befit God's Word to a holy Scripture, 
it would be an impiety. If ever then Our Lord 
defends his Church against the gates of hell, if ever 
the Holy Spirit assisted her so closely that she could 
say : It tiath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,'* 
— we must firmly believe that he inspires her on 
occasions of such great consequences as these ; for it 
would indeed be to abandon her at her need if he left 
her at this juncture, on which depends not only an 
article or two of our faith, but the substance of our 
religion. When, therefore, the Church has declared 
that a book is canonical, we must never doubt but 
that it is so. We [are] here in the same position. 
For Calvin and the very bibles of Geneva, and the 
Lutherans, receive several books as holy, sacred, and 
canonical which have not been acknowledged by all 
the Ancients as such, and about which there has been a 
doubt. If there has been a doubt formerly, what 
reason can they have to make them assured and 
certain nowadays, except that which S. Augustine had 
[as we said above] : " I would not believe the Gospel 
unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved 
me ; " and " We receive the New and the Old Testa- 
ment in that number of books which the authority 
of the Holy Catholic Church determines." Truly 
we should be very ill assured if we were to rest 
our faith on these particular interior inspirations, of 

* Acts XV. 28. 

ART. I. 0. VI.] The Rule of Faith, 1 1 3 

which we only know that they exist or ever did exist, 
by the testimony of some private persons. And 
granted that they are or have been, we do not know 
whether they are from the false or of the true spirit ; 
and supposing they are of the true spirit, we do not 
know whether they who relate them, relate them faith- 
fully or not, since they have no mark of infallibility 
whatever. We should deserve to be wrecked if we 
were to cast ourselves out of the ship of the public 
judgment of the Church, to sail in the miserable skiff 
of these new discordant private inspirations. Our 
faith would not be Catholic, but private. 

But before I quit this subject, I pray you, reformers, 
tell me whence you have taken the canon of the 
Scriptures which you follow ? You have not taken it 
from the Jews, for the books of the Gospels would 
not be there ; nor from the Council of Laodicea, for 
the Apocalypse would not be in it ; nor from the 
Councils of Carthage or of Florence, for Ecclesiasticus 
and the Machabees would be there. Whence, then, 
have you taken it ? In good sooth, like canon was 
never spoken of before your time. The Church never 
saw canon of the Scriptures in which there was not 
either more or less than in yours. What likelihood 
is there that the Holy Spirit has hidden himself from 
all antiquity, and that after 1500 years he has disclosed 
to certain private persons the list of the true Scrip- 
tures ? For our part we follow exactly the list of the 
Council of Laodicea, with the addition made at the 
Councils of Carthage and Florence. Never will a man 
of judgment leave these Councils to follow the 
persuasions of private individuals. Here, then, is the 
fountain and source of all the violations which have 
m. H 

1 14 The Catholic Controversy. [part il 

been made of this holy rule ; namely, when people 
have taken up the fancy of not receiving it save by 
the measure and rule of the inspirations which each 
one believes and thinks he feels. 



Now, how can an honest soul refrain from "ivinof the 
rein to the ardour of a holy zeal, and from entering 
into a Christian anger, without sin, considering with 
what presumption those who do nothing but cry, 
Scripture, Scripture, have despised, degraded, and pro- 
faned this divine Testament of the eternal Father, as 
they have falsified this sacred contract of so glorious 
an alliance ! ministers of Calvinism, how do you 
dare to cut away so many noble parts of the sacred 
body of the Bibles ? You take away Baruch, Tobias, 
Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees : — why 
do you thus dismember the Holy Scripture ? Who 
has told you that they are not sacred ? There was 
some doubt about them in the ancient Church ; but 
was there not doubt in the ancient Church about 
Esther, the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of S. James 
and S. Jude, the Second of S. Peter, the two last of 

* Passages in this chapter coincide with passages in the chapters 
immediately preceding and following, but we have thought it better, 
for reasons explained in the Preface, to print it as it stands. It seems 
to be a fragment of a more extended treatment of this part. [Tr,] 

AKT. L c. vii] The Rule of Faith, 1 1 5 

S. John, and especially of the Apocalypse ? Why do 
you not also erase these as you have done those ? 
Acknowledge honestly that what you have done in 
this has only been in order to contradict the Church. 
You were angry at seeing in the Machabees the inter- 
cession of Saints and prayers for the departed : Eccle- 
siasticus stung you in that it bore witness to free-will 
and the honour of relics. Eather than do violence to 
your notions, adjusting them to the Scriptures, you 
have violated the Scriptures to accommodate them 
to your notions : you have cut off the holy Word to 
avoid cutting off your fancies : how will you ever 
cleanse yourselves from this sacrilege ? Have you 
degraded the Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and 
the rest, because some of the Ancients have doubted 
of their authority? Why then do you receive the 
other books, about which there has been as much 
doubt as about these ? What can you oppose to them 
except that their doctrine is hard for you to accept ? 
Open your heart to faith, and you will easily receive 
that which your unbelief shuts out from you. Because 
you do not will to believe what they teach, you con- 
demn them : rather condemn your presumption, and 
receive the Scripture. I would chiefly lay stress on 
the authority of those books which exercise you the 
most. Clement of Alexandria {Strom, vii. 16, &c.), 
Cyprian {Ep. Ixv.), Ambrose {de fide iv.), Augustine 
{Ep. ad Or OS. contra Prise), and the rest of the 
Fathers consider Ecclesiasticus canonical. S. Cyprian 
(Serm. de op et Eleem.), S. Ambrose {lib. de Tobid, i.), 
S. Basil {de avar.), honour Tobias as Holy Scripture. 
S. Cyprian again {de exhort, mar.), S. Gregory Nazian- 
zen {orat. de Mach.), S. Ambrose (de Jacob et vit beat. 

1 1 6 The Catholic Controversy. [part h, 

X. xi.), believed the same of the Machabees. S. Augus- 
tine protests that : " it is the Catholic Church which 
holds the Books of Machabees as canonical, not the 
Jews." What will you say to this ? — that the Jews 
had them not in their catalogues ? S. Augustine 
acknowledges it ; but are you Jews, or Christians ? 
If you would be called Christians, be satisfied that 
the Christian Church receives them. Is the light of 
the Holy Spirit extinguished with the synagogue ? 
Had not our Lord and the Apostles as much power 
as the synagogue ? Although the Church has not 
taken authority for her books from the mouth of the 
Scribes and Pharisees, will it not suffice that she has 
taken it from the testimony of the Apostles ? Now 
we must not think that the ancient Church and these 
most ancient doctors would have had the boldness to 
rank these books as canonical, if they had not had 
some direction by the tradition of the Apostles and 
their disciples who could know in what rank the 
Master himself held them : — unless, to excuse our 
imaginations, we are to accuse of profanation, and of 
sacrilege, such holy and grave doctors as these, and 
the whole ancient Church. I say the ancient Church, 
because the Council of Carthage, Gelasius in the 
decree de lihris canonicis, Innocent I. in the epistle to 
Exuperius, and S. Augustine, lived before S. Gregory, 
before whose time Calvin confesses that the Church 
was still in its purity, and yet these bear witness that 
all the books which we held to be canonical when 
Luther appeared were already so in their time. If 
you would destroy the credit of those holy books, why 
did you not destroy that of the Apocalypse, about 
which there has been so much doubt, and that of the 

ART. I. 0. VII.] The Rule of Faith. 1 1 7 

Epistle to the Hebrews ? But I return to you, gentle- 
men of Thonon, who have hitherto given ear to such 
men ; I beseech you, let us say in conscience, is there 
any likelihood that Calvin knows better what grounds 
they had who anciently doubted of these books, and 
what grounds they who doubted not, than the Bishops 
and Councils of these days ? And still, all things 
well considered, antiquity received them ; — what do we 
allege to the contrary ? Oh ! if it were lawful for men, 
in order to raise their opinions on horseback, to use 
the Scripture as stirrups, to lengthen and shorten 
them, each one to his own size, where, I beg you, 
should we be ? Do you not perceive the stratagem ? 
All authority is taken away from Tradition, the Church, 
the Councils, the Pastors : what further remains ? The 
Scripture. The enemy is crafty. If he would tear it all 
away at once he would cause an alarm ; he takes away 
a great part of it in the very beginning, then first one 
piece, then the other, at last he will have you stripped 
entirely, without Scripture and without Word of God. 
Calvin takes away seven books of the Scripture : * 
Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 
the Machabees ; Luther has removed the Epistle of S. 
James, that of S. Jude, the 2nd of S. Peter, the 2nd 
and 3rd of S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews ; he ridi- 
cules Ecclesiastes, he holds Job as a fable. Eeconcile, 
I pray you, this false spirit, who takes away from 
Luther's brain what he puts back in that of Calvin. 
Does this seem to you a trifling discord between these 
two evangelists ? You will say you do not hold 
Luther's intelligence in great account ; his party think 
no better of that of Calvin. But see the progress of 

* In prologis Bib. et horum lib. 

1 1 8 The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 

your fine church, how she ever pushes on further. 
Calvin had removed seven books, she has further 
thrown out the 8th, that of Esther:* in Daniel she 
cuts off the canticle of the Three Children (c. iii.), 
the history of Susanna (c. xiii.), and that of the dragon 
slain by Daniel (xiv). In the Gospel of S. John is 
there not doubt among you of the history of the 
woman taken in adultery ? S. Augustine had indeed 
said formerly that the enemies of the faith had erased 
it from their books, but not from all, as S. Jerome 
says. Do they not wish to take away these words of 
S. Luke (xxii. 20), which shall he shed for you, because 
the Greek text {to virep vjucop eK-^Qjvoixevov) clearly 
shows that what was in the chalice was not wine, but 
the true blood of our Lord ? — as if one were to say in 
French : Cecy est la coupe du Nouveau Testament^ en 
mon sang, laquelle sera respandue pour vous : this is the 
chalice, the New Testomient in my Hood, which (chalice) 
shall he shed for you ? For in this way of speaking 
one sees clearly that what is in the cup must be the 
blood, not wine, since the wine has not been shed for 
us, but the blood. In the Epistle of S. John, have 
they not taken away these noble words : every spirit 
who dissolveth Jesus is not of God (iv. 3) ? What say 
you, gentlemen ? If your church continues in this 
liberty of conscience, making no scruple to take away 
what she pleases, soon the Scripture will fail you, and 
you will have to be satisfied with the Institutes of Cal- 
vin, which must indeed have I know not what excel- 
lence, since they censure the Scriptures themselves ! 

* At this time the so-called reformers did not decidedly accept the 
book of Esther as canonical. It is noAV accepted by their followers up 
to chap. X. V. 4. [Tr.] 

ART. I. c. VIII.] The Rule of Faith, 1 1 9 



Shall 1 say further this word ? Your fine church has 
not contented itself with cutting off from the Scripture 
entire books, chapters, sentences and words, but what 
it has not dared to cut off altogether it has corrupted 
and violated by its translations. In order that the 
sectaries of this age may altogether pervert this first 
and most holy rule of our faith, they have not been 
satisfied with shortening it or with getting rid of so 
many beautiful parts, but they have turned and turned 
it about, each one as he chose, and instead of adjust- 
ing their ideas by this rule they have adopted it to 
the square of their own greater or less sufficiency. 
The Church had universally received (more than a 
thousand years ago) the Latin version which the 
Catholic Church proposes ; S. Jerome, that most 
learned man, was the author, or corrector of it ; when, 
in our age, behold arise a thick mist created by the 
spirit of giddiness,^ which has so led astray these re- 
furbishers of old opinions formerly current, that every- 
body has wanted to drag, one to this side, one to that, 
and always according to the inclination of his own 
judgment, this holy and sacred Scripture of God. 
Herein who sees not the profanation of this sacred 
vase of the holy letter, in which was preserved the 
precious balm of the Evangelical doctrine ? For would 
it not have been a profanation of the Ark of the 

* Isa. xix. 14. 

1 20 The Catholic Controversy. [part h 

Covenant to maintain that everybody might seize it, 
carry it home, take it all to pieces, and then give it 
what form he liked provided that it had some semblance 
of an ark ? And what but this is it to maintain that 
one may take the Scriptures and turn and adjust 
them according to one's own sense ? And in just the 
same way, as soon as we are assured that the ordinary 
edition of the church is so out of shape that it must 
be built up again new, and that a private man is to 
set his hand to it and begin the process, the door is 
open to presumption. For if Luther dares to do it, 
— why not Erasmus ? And if Erasmus, why not 
Calvin or Melancthon, why not Henricus Mercerus, 
Sebastian Castalio, Beza, and the rest of the world, 
provided that they know some verses of Pindar and 
four or five words of Hebrew, and have close by some 
good Thesaurus of the one or other language ? And 
how can so many translations be made by brains so 
different, without the complete overthrow of the sin- 
cerity of the Scripture ? What say you ? that the 
ordinary version is corrupt ? We allow that tran- 
scribers and printers have let certain ambiguities of 
very slight importance slip in (if, however, anything 
in the Scripture can be called of slight importance). 
The Council of Trent commanded that these should 
be taken out, and that for the future care should be 
taken to print as correctly as possible. For the rest, 
there is nothing in it which is not most conformable 
to the meaning of the Holy Spirit who is its author, 
as has been shown by so many learned men of our 
Church,* opposing the presumption of these new re- 

* Genebrard in fTonf. Psalt. ; Titelman, Toletus, in apol. Bellar- 
minus et alii. 

ART. I. 0. VIII.] The Rule of Faith. 121 

formers of religion, that it would be losing time to 
try to speak more of it ; besides that it would be folly 
in me to wish to speak of the correctness of transla- 
tions, who never well knew how to read with the 
points in one of the languages necessary for this 
knowledge, and am hardly more learned in the other. 
But how have you improved matters ? Everybody 
has held to his own views, everybody has despised 
his neighbour's ; they have turned it about as they 
liked, but no one speaks of his comrade's version. 
What is this but to overthrow the majesty of the 
Scripture, and to bring it into contempt with the 
people, who think that this diversity of editions 
comes rather from the uncertainty of the Scriptures 
than from the variety of the translators, a variety 
which alone ought to put us in assurance concern- 
ing the ancient translation, which, as the Council 
says, the Church has so long, so constantly, and so 
unanimously approved. 

An example or two will suifice. In the Acts,* 
where there is : Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell 
(animam in inferno), they make it: Thou shalt not 
leave my corpse in the tomb {cadaver in sepulchro). 
Whoever saw such versions ? Instead of soul (and it 
is Our Lord who is spoken of) to say carrion, and 
instead of hell to say sepulchre ! Peter Martyr {in 
def, de Euch. p. 3^ p. 692) cites i Cor. x. 3, and 
they all eat the same spiritual food as we {nohiscum) : 
he inserts this nohiscum to prove his point. I have 
seen in several bibles in this country a very subtle 
falsehood, in the mysterious words of the institution of 
the most Holy Sacrament : instead of hoc est corjpiLS 

* ii. 27. 

122 The Catholic Controversy. [part il 

meum, cecy est mon corps ; they had put : c'est cy mon 
corps.* Who does not perceive the deceit ? 

You see something then of the violence and pro- 
fanation your ministers do and offer to the Scriptures : 
what think you of their ways ? What will become of 
us if everybody takes leave, as soon as he knows two 
words of Greek, and the letters in Hebrew, thus to 
turn everything topsy turvy ? I have therefore shown 
you what I promised, — that this first rule of our 
faith has been and still is most sadly violated in your 
pretended church; and that you may know it to be 
a property of heresy thus to dismember the Scriptures, 
I will close this part of my subject with what 
Tertullian says,t speaking of the sects of his time. 
" This heresy " [of the Gnostics], says he, " does not 
receive some of the Scriptures ; and if it receives 
some it does not receive them whole . . . and what 
it receives in a certain sense whole, it still perverts, 
devising various interpretations." 



But if the case be thus with the Latin versions, how 
great are the contempt and profanation shown in the 
French, German, Polish, and other languages ! And 
yet here is one of the most successful artifices adopted 

* Here is my body, instead of This is my body. [Tr. ] 
+ de Proescr, xvii. 

ART. 1. 0. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 123 

by the enemy of Christianity and of unity in our age, 
to attract the people. He knew the curiosity of men, 
and how much one esteems one's own judgment ; and 
therefore he has induced his sectaries to translate the 
Holy Scriptures, every one into the tongue of the 
province where he finds himself placed, and to main- 
tain this unheard-of opinion, that every one is capable 
of understanding the Scriptures, that all should read 
them, and that the public offices should be celebrated 
and sung in the vulgar tongue of each district. 

But who sees not the artifice ? There is nothing in 
the world which, passing through many hands, does not 
change and lose it first lustre : wine which has been 
often poured out and poured back loses its freshness 
and strength, wax when handled changes its colour, 
coins lose their stamp. Be sure also that Holy Scrip- 
ture, passing through so many translators, in so many 
versions and re-versions, cannot but be altered. And 
if in the Latin versions there is such a variety of 
opinion among these turners of Scripture, how much 
more in their vernacular and mother-tongue editions, 
which not every one is able to check or to criticise ? 
It gives a very great license to translators to know 
that they will only be tested by those of their own 
province. Every district has not such clear seeing 
eyes as France and Germany. "Are we sure," says a 
learned profane writer,* " that in the Basque provinces 
and in Brittany there are persons of sufficient judgment 
to give authority to this translation made into their 
tongue ; the universal Church has no more arduous 
decision to give ; " it is Satan's plan for corrupting the 
integrity of this holy Testament. He well knows 
* Montaigne. Essaies I. 56. See Preface. 

124 ^^^ Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

the result of disturbing and poisoning the source ; it 
is at once to spoil all that comes after. 

But let us be frank. Do we not know that the 
Apostles spoke all tongues ? How is it then that 
their gospels and their epistles are only in Hehrew, as S. 
Jerome witnesses * of the Gospel of S. Matthew ; in 
Latin, as some think concerning that of S. Mark ; t 
and in Greek, as is held concerning the other Gospels? 
which were the three languages chosen at Our Lord's 
very cross for the preaching of the Crucified. Did 
they not carry the Gospel throughout the world ? and 
in the world were there no other languages but these 
three ? Truly there were, and yet they did not judge 
it expedient to vary their writings in so many lan- 
guages. Who then shall despise the custom of our 
Church, which has for its warrant the imitation of the 
Apostles ? I Now for this, besides the great weight 

* Prol. in Matt. 

t In Pontifical! Damasi. The Saint mentions the opinion, but he 
himself held the now universal sentiment of Doctors that S. Mark 
wrote in Greek. [Tr.] 

+ Of this we have a notable trace and evidence in the Gospel : for 
the day Our Lord entered into Jerusalem, the crowds kept crying out : 
Hosanna to the Son of David ; blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
the Lord: hosanna in the highest (Matt. xxi. 9.) And this word, 
hosanna, has been left in its integrity in the Greek text of S. Mark 
and S. John, to signify that it was the very word of the people. Now 
hosanna, or hosianna (for one is the same as the other in this language, 
the learned tell us) is a Hebrew, not a Syriac word, taken, with the 
rest of that praise which was given to Our Lord, from the 117th 
Psalm. These people then were accustomed to recite the Psalms in 
Hebrew ; yet the Hebrew was no longer their vulgar tongue ; — as one 
may see by several words said in the Gospel by Our Lord, which were 
Syriac and which the Evangelists have retained : as Abba, Hacddama, 
Golgotha, Pascha, and others. Learned men tell us that these were not 
Hebrew but Syraic, though they may be called Hebrew as being of the 
vernacular tongue of the Hebrews after the captivity of Babylon. 

ART. I. c. IX.] The Rtile of Faith. 125 

it should have to put down all our curious question- 
ings, there is a reason which I hold to be most sound : 
it is that these other languages are not fixed, they 
change between town and town ; in accents, in phrases, 
and in words, they are altered, and vary from season 
to season and from age to age. Take up the Memoir es 
of the Sire de Joinville, or of Philip de Comines, and 
you will see that time has entirely altered their 
language ; and yet these historians must have been 
among the most polished of their age, both having 
been brought up at Court. If then we were to have 
(particularly for the public services) bibles each in 
our own tongue, every fifty years it would be neces- 
sary to have a revolution, and in every case with 
adding to, or taking away from, or altering, much of 
the holy exactness of the Scripture, which could not 
be done without a great loss. In short, it is more 
than reasonable that so holy a rule as is the holy 
Word of God should be kept in fixed languages, since 
it could not be maintained in this perfect integrity 
within bastard and unstable languages. 

But I inform you that the holy Council of Trent 
does not reject translations in the vulgar tongue 
printed by the authority of the Ordinaries ; only it 
commands * that we should not begin to read them 
without leave of superiors. This is a very reasonable 
precaution against putting this sharp and two-edged 
sword t into the hands of one who might kill himself 
therewith. But of this we will speak by and by. 

The Church, then, does not approve that everybody 
who can read, without further assurance of his ca- 
pacity than that which he persuades himself of in his 
* Reg. iv. Indicis, t Heb. iv. 12. 

126 The Catholic Controversy. [partiu 

own presumption, should handle this sacred memorial, 
nor truly is it right that she should so approve. 

I remember to have read in an Essay of the Sieur 
de Montaigne's (see above), " It is certainly wrong 
that there should be seen tossing about in everybody's 
hands, in parlour and in kitchen, the holy book of the 
sacred mysteries of our belief. . . . It is not casually 
or hurriedly that we are to prosecute so serious and 
venerable a study ; it should be a reflective and steady 
act, to which should always be added that preface of 
our office : sicrsum corda, and for which the body itself 
should be brought into a haviour which may betoken 
a particular attention and reverence . . . and I more- 
over believe that liberty for everybody to translate it, 
and by this means to dissipate words so religious and 
important into all sorts of languages, has much more 
danger than profit." 

The Council also commands* that the public services 
of the Church shall not be celebrated in the vulgar 
tongue, but in a fixed language, each one according to 
the ancient formularies approved by the Church. 
This decree takes its reasons from what I have already 
said ; for if it is not expedient thus to translate, at 
every turn, province by province, the venerable text 
of the Scripture, the greatest part, and we may say 
all, that is in the offices being taken from the Holy 
Scripture, it is also not becoming to give these in 
French. Indeed, is there not a greater danger in 
reciting the Holy Scripture in the vulgar tongue at 
public services, on this account that not only the old 
but little children, not only the wise but the foolish, 
not only men but women, in short both he who knows 

* Sess. xxii. 

ART. I. c. IX.] The Rule of Faith, 127 

and he who knows not how to read, may all take 
occasion of erring, each one as he likes ? Read the 
passages of David where he seems to murmur against 
God concerning the prosperity of the wicked ; you 
will see the unwise people justify themselves by this 
in their impatience. Eead where he seems to demand 
vengeance against his enemies, and the spirit of 
vengeance will cloak itself under this. Let them see 
those heavenly and entirely divine loves in the 
Canticle of Canticles ; from not knowing how to spiri- 
tualize them these will only profit them unto evil. 
And that word of Osee : * Vade et fac tihi filios forni- 
cationeSj and those acts of the ancient Patriarchs, — 
would they not give license to fools ? But pray give 
us some little reason why we should have the Scrip- 
tures and Divine Services in the vulgar tongue. To 
learn doctrine thereby ? But surely the doctrine 
cannot be therein found unless we open the bark of 
the letter, in which is contained the intelligence : 
I will show this directly in its place. What is useful 
for this purpose is not the reciting of the service 
but preaching, in which the Word of God is not only 
pronounced but expounded by the pastor. And who 
is he, however well furnished at all points (tant 
houppe soit il et ferrd), who can understand without 
study the prophecies of Ezechiel, and others, and the 
Psalms ? What, then, will the people do with them 
when they hear them except profane them and cast a 
doubt on them. 

At any rate we who are Catholics must in no wise 
bring down our sacred offices into vernacular languages ; 
but rather, as our Church is universal in time and in 

* i. 2. 

128 The Catholic Controversy, [part n. 

place, it ought also to celebrate public offices in a 
language which is universal in time and in place, as is 
Latin in the West, Greek in the East ; otherwise our 
priests could not say Mass nor others understand them 
outside their own countries. The unity and the great 
extension of our brethren require that we should say 
our public prayers in a language which shall be com- 
mon to all peoples. In this way our prayers are 
universal, by means of the number of persons who in 
each province can understand Latin, and it seems to 
me, in conscience, that this reason alone should suffice ; 
for if we consider rightly, our prayers are heard no less 
in Latin than in French. Let us divide the body of 
a commonwealth into three parts, according to the 
ancient French division, or, according to the new, into 
four ; there are four sets of persons : the clergy, the 
nobility, they of the long robe, and the people or third 
estate. The three first understand Latin or should 
understand it, if they do not rather make it their own 
language ; there remains the lowest rank, of which, 
again, a part understand ; and truly as for the rest, if 
one do not speak the jargon of their country, it is only 
with great difficulty that they could understand the 
simple narrative of the Scripture. That most excellent 
theologian, Eobert Bellarmine,^^' relates, having heard 
it from a most trustworthy source, that a good dame 
in England having heard a minister read the twenty- 
fifth chapter of Ecclesiasticus (though they only hold 
it to be an ancient book, not a canonical one), because 
it there speaks of the wickedness of women, rose up, 
saying : What ! — is this the Word of God ? — of the 
devil rather. He quotes from Theodoret t an excellent 

* On this question. t Hist. ir. 

ART. I. 0. X.] The Rtile of Faith, 1 29 

and true word of S. Basil the Great. The chief of the 
Emperor's kitchen wishing to play the sage, began to 
bring forward certain passages of the Scripture : " It 
is yours [said the Saint] to mind your dishes, not to 
cook divine dogmata : " as if he had said : Occupy 
yourself with tasting your sauces, not with devouring 
the divine Word. 



The imagination must have great power over Huguenot 
understandings, since it persuades them so absolutely 
of this grand absurdity, that the Scriptures are easy 
to everybody, and that everybody can understand them. 
It is true that to bring forth vulgar translations with 
honour it was necessary to speak in this mariner; but 
tell me the truth, do you think that the case really 
runs so ? Do you find them so easy, do you under- 
stand them so well ? If you think you do, I admire 
your credulity, which goes not only beyond experi- 
ence, but is contrary to what you see and feel. If it 
is true that the Scripture is so easy to understand, 
what is the use of so many commentaries made by 
your ministers, what is the object of so many har- 
monies, what is the good of so many schools of Theo- 
logy ? There is need of no more, say you, than the 
doctrine of the pure word of God in the Church. But 
where is this word of God ? In the Scripture ? And 

130 The Catholic Controversy, [part h. 

Scripture — is it some secret thing ? No — you say not 
to the faithful. Why, then, these interpreters and these 
preachers ? If you are faithful, yon will understand 
the Scriptures as well as they do ; send them off to 
unbelievers, and simply keep some deacons to give 
you the morsel of bread and pour out the wine of 
your supper. If you can feed yourselves in the field 
of the Scripture, what do you want with pastors ? 
Some young innocent, some mere child who is able to 
read, will do just as well. But whence comes this 
continual and irreconcilable discord which there is 
among you, brethren in Luther, over these words, 
This is my body, and on Justification ? Certainly S. 
Peter is not of your thinking, who assures us in his 
2nd Epistle* that in the letters of S. Paul there are 
certain points hard to he understood, which the unlearned 
and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their 
own perdition. The eunuch who was treasurer-general 
of Ethiopia was certainly faithful, t since he came to 
adore in the Temple of Jerusalem ; he was reading 
Isaias ; he quite understood the words, since he asked 
of what prophet that which he had read was to be 
understood ; yet still he had not the understanding 
nor the spirit of them, as he himself confessed : How 
can I, unless some one shows me ? Not only does he 
not understand, but he confesses that he has not the 
power unless he is taught. And we shall see some 
washerwoman boast of understanding the Scripture as 
well as S. Bernard did ! Do you not know the spirit 
of discord ? It is necessary to convince oneself that 
the Scripture is easy in order that everybody may 
drag it about, some one way, some another, that each 
* iii. 16. i Acts viii. 

ART. I. c. X.] The Rule of Faith. 131 

one may be a master in it, and that it may serve 
everybody's opinions and fancies. Certainly David 
held it to be far from easy when he said : * Give, me 
understanding, that I may learn thy commandments. 
If they have left you the Epistle of S. Jerome to 
Panlinus in the preface of your bibles, read it, for it 
treats this point expressly. S. Augustine speaks of it 
in a thousand places, but particularly in his Confes- 
sions. In the 119th Epistle he confesses that there 
is much more in the Scripture of which he is ignorant 
than there is of what he knows. Origen and S. 
Jerome, the former in his preface on the Canticles, 
the latter in his on Ezechiel, say that it was not per- 
mitted to the Jews before the age of thirty to read 
the three first chapters of Genesis, the commencement 
and the end of Ezechiel, or the Canticle of Canticles, 
on account of the depth of the difficulties therein, in 
which few persons can swim without being submerged. 
And now, everybody talks of them, everybody criticises 
them, everybody knows all about them. 

And how great the profanation of the Scriptures is 
in this way nobody could sufficiently believe who had 
not seen it. As for me, I will say what I know, and I 
lie not. I have seen a person in good society who, when 
one objected to an expression of hers the sentence of 
Our Lord t — To him that striketh thee on the one cheek 
offer also the other, — immediately explained it in this 
sense : that as to encourage a child who studies well 
we lay our hand lightly with little pats upon his cheek 
to excite him to do better, so Our Lord meant to say : 
be so grateful to one who may find you doing right 
and who may caress you for it that he may take 
* Ps. cxviii. 73. + Luke vi 29. 

132 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

occasion another time to treat you still better and to 
caress or fondle you on both sides. Is not that a fine 
meaning and a precious ? But the reason was even 
better, — that to understand this text otherwise would 
be against nature, and that while we must interpret 
Scripture by Scripture, we find in Scripture that Our 
Lord did not do so when the servant struck him : this 
is the fruit of your translated theology. An honest 
man, and one who in my opinion would not lie, has 
related to me that he heard a minister of this country, 
treating of the Nativity of Our Lord, assert that he 
was not born in a crib, and expound the text (which is 
express on the other side) figuratively, saying: Our Lord 
also says that he is the vine, yet for all that he is not 
one ; in the same way, although it is said that he is 
born in a crib, yet born there he is not, but in some 
honourable place which in comparison with his greatness 
might be called a crib. The character of this inter- 
pretation leads me still more to believe the man who 
told me, for being simple and unable to read he could 
hardly have made it up. It is a most curious thing to 
see how this pretended enlightenment causes the Holy 
Scripture to be profaned. Is it not doing what God 
says in Ezechiel : ''' Was it not enough for you to feed 
ufon good 2MStures ; hiU you must also tread down with 
your feet the residue of the 'pastitres ? 

* xxxiv. 18. 

ART. 1. 0. XL] The Rule of Faith, 133 



But amongst all profanations it seems to me that 
this comes out above the rest, that in the temples 
publicly, and everywhere, in the fields, in the shops, 
they sing the rhymes of Marot as Psalms of David. 
The mere incompetence of the author, who was utterly 
ignorant ; his licentiousness, which he testifies by his 
writings ; his most profane life, which had nothing 
whatever of the Christian about it, caused him to be 
refused the communion of the Church. And yet his 
name and his psalms are, as it were, sacred in your 
churches ; they are recited among you as if they 
were David's, — whereas who sees not how the sacred 
word is violated ? The measure and restrictions of 
verse make it impossible that the sacred meaning of 
the Scripture words should be followed ; he mixes in 
his own to make sense, and it becomes necessary for 
this ignorant rhymester to choose one sense in places 
where there might be several. What ! is it not an 
extreme violation and profanation to have left to 
such an empty-headed witling a judgment of such 
great consequence, and then in the public prayers to 
follow as closely this buffoon's selection as one ever 
did formerly the interpretation of the Seventy, who 
were so particularly assisted by the Holy Spirit ? 
How many words and how many sentences has he 
secreted therein which were never in the Scriptures ? 

1 34 The Catholic Controversy. [part il 

This is a very different thing from ill-pronouncing 
BdhhoUtli.'^ At the same time it is well known that 
there is nothing which has so delighted busybodies, 
and above all women, as this authorisation to sing in 
the church and at the meetings. Certainly we forbid 
no one to sing devoutly, modestly, and becomingly ; 
but it seems more proper that Ecclesiastics and their 
deputies should sing as a general rule, as was done in 
the Dedication of Solomon's Temple. how delightful 
to get one's voice heard in the church ! But do they 
not betray you in the songs they make you utter ? 
I have not leisure or convenience for going into the 
matter further. When you shout these verses of the 
8th Psalm : — Thou hast made him such that no more 
remains to him eoceejpt to he God ; hut as to all else thou 
hast, &c. — how delighted you are to be able to chant 
and sing these French rhymes Marot^es.^ It would 
be much better to be silent in Latin than to blaspheme 
in French. Accept this warning. When you sing 
this verse, whom do you suppose you speak of? You 
speak of Our Lord, unless, to excuse the audacity of 
Marot and of your church, you also erase the Epistle 
to the Hebrews from the holy Bible: for S. Paul 
clearly there (ii. 6, 7, 8) expounds this verse of Our 
Lord. And if you speak of Our Lord, why do you 
say he is such that no more now remains for him 
except to be God ? Questionless if anything now 
remains to him to be God he will never be it. What 
say you, poor people ? — that it " remains " for Jesus 
Christ to be God? See how those men make you 
swallow the poisoned morsel of Arianism, in singing 
these sorry rhymes. I am no longer astonished that 

* Judges xii, 6. t i.e. of Marut. [Ti.] 

\ET. 1. c. XI.] The Rule of Faith, 135 

Calvin confessed to Valentine Gentilis, that the Name 
of God by excellence belongs only to the Father. 
Behold the splendid eversions of the Scripture with 
which you are well pleased ; behold the blasphemies 
which your Church sings in a body, and which she 
makes you repeat so often. 

And as to this fashion of having the Psalms sung 
indifferently in all places and during all occupations, 
who sees not that it is a contempt of religion ? Is it 
not to offend His Divine Majesty to say to him words 
as excellent as those of the Psalms, without any 
reverence or attention ? To say prayers after the 
manner of common talking, is this not a mocking of 
him to whom we speak ? When we see at Geneva 
or elsewhere a shop-boy laughing during the singing 
of the Psalms, and breaking the thread of a most 
beautiful prayer, to say : What will you buy, sir ? — 
do we not clearly see that he is making an accessary 
of the principal, and that it is only for pastime that 
he was singing this divine song, which he at the same 
time believes to be of the Holy Spirit ? Is it not 
good to hear cooks singing the penitential Psalms of 
David, and asking at each verse for the bacon, the 
capon, the partridge ! " That voice," says De Mon- 
taigne, " is too divine to have no other use than to 
exercise the lungs and please the ears." * I allow 
that all places are good to pray in privately, and the 
same holds good of every occupation which is not 
sin, provided that we pray in spirit, because God sees 
the interior wherein lies the chief and substantial 
part of prayer. But I consider that he who prays in 
public ought to make exterior demonstration of the 

* Samo Essay. 

136 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

reverence which the very words he is uttering demand : 
otherwise he scandalises his neighbour, who is not 
bound to think there is religion in the interior when 
he sees the contempt in the exterior. I hold, then, that 
both in singing as divine Psalms what is very often 
an imagination of Marot's, and in singing them irrever- 
ently and without respect, they very often sin in that 
reformed church of yours against that word : God is a 
spirit, and those who adore him must adore him in 
spirit and in truthf^'' For besides that in these 
Psalms you very often attribute to the Holy Ghost 
the conceptions of Marot contrary to the truth, the 
mouth also cries in streets and kitchens : Lord ! 
Lord ! when the heart and the spirit are not there 
but in traffic and gain, as Isaias says : t You draw 
near God with your mouth, and with your lips glorify 
him, hut your heart is far from him, and you have 
feared him according to the commandment and doctrines 
of men. It is quite true that this impropriety of 
praying without devotion occurs very often among 
Catholics, but it is not with the advertence of the 
Church : and I am not now blaming particular 
members of your party, but your body in general, 
which by its versions and liberties bring into profane 
use what should be treated with the greatest rever- 
ence. \ In chapter 1 4 of the I st of Corinthians, the 
Let women ktep silence in the churches seems to be 
understood of hymns {cantiques) as much as of the 
rest : our nuns are in oratorio non in ecclesid. 

* John iv. 23. t xxix. 13. 

X The following sentence is in the autograph placed between bars, 
and seems meant to be amplified. [Tr.] 

ART. I. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith. 137 



Now follows what you allege in your defence. S. 
Paul seems * to want to have the service performed in 
a language intelligible to the Corinthians ; you will 
see that at the same time he does not wish the service 
to be diversified with all sorts of languages, but only 
that the exhortations and hymns which were uttered 
by means of the gift of tongues should be interpreted, 
in order that the Church where any one might be 
should know what was said : And therefore he that 
speaketh hy a tongue, let him pray that he may interpret. 
He intends, then, that the praises which were made at 
Corinth should be made in Greek : for as they were 
made not now as ordinary services, but as the extra- 
ordinary hymns of those who had this gift, for 
the gladdening of the people, it was reasonable that 
they should be made in intelligible language, or be at 
once interpreted. This he seems to show when he 
says lower down : If, therefore, the lohole church come 
together into one place, and all speak with tongues^ and 
there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not 
say that you are mad ? And further on : If any speak 
with a tongue, let it he hy tivo, or at the most hy three, and 
in course, and let one interpret. But if there he no inter- 
preter, let him hold his peace in the church, and speak to 
hirnselfand to God. Who sees not that he is not speak- 

* I Cor. xiv. 

138 The Catholic Controversy, [paktil 

ing of the solemn offices in the Church, which were only 
performed by the pastor, but of the hymns which were 
made through the gift of tongues, which he wished to 
be understood ? for in truth if they were not, it dis- 
tracted the assembly, and was of no benefit. Several 
ancient Fathers speak of these hymns, and amongst 
others Tertullian, who, treating of the holiness of the 
agapes or love feasts of the ancients, says : * " After the 
washing of hands and the lamps, each one is pressed 
to sing publicly to God as he is able, out of the Holy 
Scriptures or his own heart." 

This people glorify me loith their lips, hut their heart, 
&c.t This is meant of those who, singing and praying 
in any language whatever, speak of God mechanically, 
without reverence and devotion; not of those who 
speak a language unknown to them but known to the 
Church, and who, moreover, have their heart rapt 
unto God. 

In the Acts of the Apostles they praised God in all 
tongues. So they should do ; but in universal and 
Catholic offices there is need of a universal and 
Catholic language. Except for this, every tongue 
confesses that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of 
God the Father.^ 

In Deuteronomy, § it is said that the commandments 
of God are not secret or sealed up ; and does not the 
Psalmist say : The commandment of the Lord is light- 
some : thy word is a lamp to my feet ? \\ That is all 
very true, but it means when preached and explained, 
and properly understood. IToiv shall they believe with- 

* Apol. xxxix. See the notes of Messire Mmar Ennequin, bishop 
of Rennes, on Book vi. c. 2 of S. Augustine's Confessions. 

+ Is. xxix. 13. X Phil. ii. II. § xxx. 11 xviii. cxviii. 

ART. I. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith. 139 

out a preacher ! * And all that the great Prophet 
David has said is not to be understood of everybody. 

But you object to me : in any case, ought I not to 
seek the meat of my soul and of my salvation ? Poor 
man, who denies it ? But if everybody goes to pas- 
ture like the old ewes, what is the need of shepherds ? 
Seek the pastures, but with your pastor. Should we 
not laugh at the sick man who would find his health 
in Hippocrates without the help of the doctor, or at 
him who would seek out his rights in Justinian 
without betaking himself to the judge ? Seek, one 
would say to him, your health by means of doctors ; 
seek your right and gain it, but by the hands of the 
magistrate. " What man of moderately sound mind 
does not understand that the exposition of the Scrip- 
tures is to be sought from those who are doctors in 
them ? " says S. Augustine.t But if no one can find 
his salvation except the one who can read the Scrip- 
tures, what will become of so many poor ignorant 
people ? Surely they find and seek their salvation 
quite satisfactorily when they learn from the mouth 
of the pastor the substance of what they must believe, 
hope for, love, do, and ask of God. Believe that also 
according to the spirit that is true which the Wise Man 
says : Better is the poor man walking in his simplicity 
than the rich m crooked ways (Prov. xxviii. 6) ; and else- 
where : The simplicity of the just shall guide them (xi. 3); 
and : He that walketh sincerely walketh confidently (x. 9), 
where I do not mean to say that we must not take 
the trouble to understand, but only that we must not 
expect to find our salvation and our pasturage of our- 
selves, without the guidance of those whom God has 

* Koin. X. 14, t De Moribus Ecd. 

1 40 The Catholic Controversy, [part 11 

appointed unto this end, according to the same Wise 
Man : Lean not upon thy prudence^ and he not ivise in 
thy own conceit (iii. 5, 7). Which they do not practice 
who think that of their own wisdom they know all 
sorts of mysteries ; not observing the order which God 
has established; who has made amongst us some 
doctors and pastors, — not all, and not each one for 
himself. Indeed, S. Augustine found that S. Anthony, 
an unlearned man, failed not to know the way of 
Paradise; and he with all his doctrine was very far 
therefrom, at that time amid the errors of the 

But I have some testimonies of antiquity, and some 
signal examples, which I would leave you at the end 
of this article as its conclusion. 

S. Augustine f " Your charity was to be admonished 
that confession (confessionem) is not always the voice 
of a sinner; for as soon as this word of the Lector 
sounded, there followed the sound of your striking 
your breast; that is, as soon as you heard that the 
Lord said: I confess to thee, Father, immediately the 
word / confess sounded, you struck your breasts ; now 
to strike the breast, what is it but to signify what lies 
in the breast, and with a visible stroke to chastise an 
unseen sin ? Why did you do this but because you 
heard / confess to thee, Father ? You heard / confess, 
but you did not take notice who was confessing. Now 
therefore take notice." Do you see how the people 
heard the public reading of the Gospel, and did not 
understand it, except this word : / confess to thee, 
Father, which they understood by custom, because 
it was said iust at the beginning of the Mass as 

* Confess, viii 8. f De Verbis Domini. Serm. viii. 

ART. I. a XII.] The Rtile of Faith. 141 

we say it now. It was, no doubt, because the reading 
was in Latin, which was not their vulgar tongue. 

But he who would see the esteem in which Catholics 
hold the holy Scripture, and the respect they bear it, 
should regard the great Cardinal Borromeo, who never 
studied in the Holy Scriptures save on his knees, it 
seeming to him that he heard God speaking in them, 
and that such reverence was due to so divine a hearing. 
Never was a people better instructed, considering the 
malice of the age, than the people of Milan under the 
Cardinal Borromeo ; but the instruction of the people 
does not come by force of hurrying over the holy 
Bible, or often reading the mere letter of this divine 
Scripture, nor by singing snatches of the Psalms as the 
fancy takes one ; but by using them, by reading, hear- 
ing, singing, praying to God, with a lively apprehen- 
sion of the majesty of God to whom we speak, whose 
Word we read, evermore with that Preface of the 
ancient Church : sursum corda. 

That great servant of God, S. Francis, of whose 
glorious and most holy memory the Feast was cele- 
brated yesterday * throughout the whole world, showed 
us a beautiful example of the attention and reverence 
with which we ought to pray to God. This is what 
the holy and fervent Doctor of the Church, S. Bono- 
venture, tells of it.t "The holy man was accustomed 
to recite the Canonical Hours not less reverently than 
devoutly ; for although he was labouring under an 
infirmity of the eyes, the stomach, the spleen, and the 
liver, he would not lean against wall or other support 
while he was singing, but recited the hours always 
standing and bare-headed, not with wandering eyes, 
* Written probably Oct. 5, 1595. t In Vitd Fr. 

142 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

nor with any shortening of verse or word; if some- 
times he were on a journey he then made a fixed 
arrangement of time, not omitting this reverent and 
holy custom on account of pouring rain : for he used 
to say : If the body eat quietly its food which, with 
itself, is to be food of worms, how great should be the 
peace and tranquillity with which the soul should take 
the food of life ? " 





Here are the words of the holy Council of Trent,* 
speaking of Christian and Evangelical truth : " (The 
holy Synod), considering that this truth and discipline 
are contained in written books, and in unwritten 
Traditions which, being received by the Apostles from 
the mouth of Christ himself, or from the same Apostles 
at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and being delivered 
as it were from hand to hand, have come down to us, 
following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, re- 
ceives and honours with an equal affectionate piety 
and reverence, all the books as well of the Old as of 
the New Testament, since the one God is the author 
of both, and also these Traditions, as it were orally 

* Sess. iv. 

ART. II. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 143 

dictated by Christ or the Holy Ghost, and preserved 
in the Catholic Church by perpetual succession." 
This is truly a decree worthy of an assembly which 
could say : It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and 
to us ; for there is scarcely a word of it which does 
not strike home against our adversaries, and which 
does not take their weapons from their grasp. For 
what does it henceforth serve them to exclaim : In 
vain do they serve me, teaching doctrines and com- 
mandments of men (Matt. xv. 9) ; Yoio have made 
void the commandment of God for your tradition. 
(ibid. 6). Not attending to Jewish fables (Tit. i. 14); 
Zealous for the traditions of my fathers (Gal. i. 14); 
Beware lest any man impose upon you hy philosophy 
and vain fallacy, according to the tradition of men (Col. 
ii. 8) ; Redeemed from your vain conversation of the 
tradition of your fathers (i Pet. i. 18)? All this is 
not to the purpose, since the Council clearly protests 
that the traditions it receives are neither traditions nor 
commandments of men, but those " which, being re- 
ceived by the Apostle from the mouth of Christ him- 
self, or from the same Apostles, at the dictation of the 
Holy Spirit, and being delivered as it were from hand 
to hand, have come down to us. They are then the 
word of God, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, not 
of men ; and here you will see almost all your ministers 
stick, making mighty harangues to show that human 
tradition is not to be put in comparison with the 
Scriptures. But of what use is all this save to beguile 
the poor hearers ? — for we never said it was. 

In a similar way they bring against us what S. 
Paul said to his good Timothy: * All Scripture divinely 
* 2 Tim. iii. i6, 17. 

144 The Catholic Controversy s [parth. 

inspired is profitahle to teach, to reprove, to correct, to 
instruct in justice, that the man of God may he perfect, 
furnished unto every good work. Whom are they angry 
with ? This is to force a quarrel.* Who denies the 
most excellent profitableness of the Scriptures, except 
the Huguenots who take away as good for nothing 
some of its finest pieces ? The Scriptures are indeed 
most useful, and it is no little favour which God has 
done us to preserve them for us through so many 
persecutions ; but the utility of Scripture does not 
make holy Traditions useless, any more than the use 
of one eye, of one leg, of one ear, of one hand, makes 
the other useless. The Council says : it " receives 
and honours with an equal affectionate piety and 
reverence all the books as well of the Old as of the 
New Testament, and also these Traditions." It would 
be a fine way of reasoning — faith profits, therefore 
works are good for nothing ! Similarly, — Many other 
things also did Jesus, which are not written in this 
hook. But these are written that you may helieve that 
Jesus is the Son of God, and that helieving you may 
have life in his name (John xx. 30, 31): therefore 
there is nothing to believe except this ! — excellent 
consequence ! We well know that whatever is written 
is written for our edification (Eom. xv. 4), but shall 
this hinder the Apostles from preaching ? These things 
are written that you may helieve that Jesus is the Son of 
God : but that is not enough ; for how shall they helieve 
without a preacher (ibid. x. 14)? The Scriptures are 
given for our salvation, but not the Scriptures alone ; 
Traditions also have their place. Birds have a right 
wing to fly with ; is the left wing therefore of no use ? 
• Querdle d'Allemand, 

ART. II. 0. 1,] The Rule of Faith, 1 45 

The one does not move without the other. I leave on 
one side the exact answers : for S. John is speaking 
only of the miracles which he had to record, of which 
he considers he has given enough to prove the divinity 
of the Son of God. 

When they adduce these words : — You shall not add 
to the word that I sijcah to you, neither shall you take 
away from it (Deut. iv. 2) ; But though ive or an angel 
from heaven preach a gospel to you beside that which ice 
have preached to yoity let him he anathema (Gal. i. 8) : 
they say nothing against the Council, which expressly 
declares that this Gospel teaching consists not only in 
the Scriptures, but also in Traditions; the Scripture 
then is the Gospel, but it is not the whole Gospel, for 
Traditions form the other part. He then who shall 
teach against what the Apostles have taught, let him 
be accursed ; but the Apostles have taught by writing 
and by Tradition, and the whole is the Gospel. 

And if you closely consider how the Council com- 
pares Traditions with the Scriptures you will see that 
it does not receive a Tradition contrary to Scripture : 
for it receives Tradition and Scripture with equal 
honour, because both the one and the other are most 
sweet and pure streams, which spring from one same 
mouth of our Lord, as from a living fountain of wis- 
dom, and therefore cannot be contrary, but are of the 
same taste and quality ; and uniting together happily 
water this tree of Christianity which shall give its 
fruit in due season. 

We call then Apostolic Tradition the doctrine, 

whether it regard faith or morals, which our Lord has 

taught with his own mouth or by the mouth of the 

Apostles, which without having been written in the 

I". K 

146 The Catholic Controversy, [parth 

Canonical books has been preserved till our time, 
passing from hand to hand by continual succession of 
the Church. In a word, it is the Word of the living 
God, witnessed not on paper but on the heart.'" And 
there is not merely Tradition of ceremonies and of a 
certain exterior order which is arbitrary and of mere 
propriety, but as the holy Council says, of doctrine, 
which belongs to faith itself and to morals; — though 
as regards Traditions of morals there are some which 
lay us under a most strict obligation, and others which 
are only proposed to us by way of counsel and 
becomingness ; and the non-observance of these latter 
does not make us guilty, provided that they are 
approved and esteemed as holy, and are not despised. 




We confess that the Holy Scripture is a most excellent 
and profitable doctrine. It is written in order that 
we may believe ; everything that is contrary to it is 
falsehood and impiety : but to establish these truths 
it is not necessary to reject this which is also a truth, 
that Traditions are most profitable, given in order that 
we may believe ; everything that is contrary to them 
is impiety and falsehood. For to establish one truth 

* The learned Antony Possevin, contra Chytrceum, remarks that the 
Christian doctrine is not called Eugraphium [good writings], but 
Evangelium [good tidings]. 

AKT. IT. c. II.] The Rule of Faith, 147 

we are never to destroy another. The Scripture is 
useful to teach ; learn then from the Scripture itself 
that we must receive with honour and faith holy 
Traditions. If we are to add nothing to what our 
Lord has commanded, — where has he commanded that 
we should condemn Apostolic Traditions ? Why do 
you add this to his words ? Where has our Lord 
ever taught it ? Indeed so far is he from having ever 
commanded the contempt of Apostolic Traditions that 
he never despised any Tradition of the least Prophet 
in the world. Eun through all the Gospel, and you 
will see nothing censured there except Traditions 
which are human and contrary to the Scripture. But 
if neither our Lord has written it nor his Apostles, 
why would you evangelise unto us these things ? On 
the contrary, it is forbidden to take anything away 
from the Scripture ; why then would you take away the 
Traditions which are so expressly authorised therein ? 

Is it not the Holy Scripture of S. Paul which says : 
Therefore, hrethren, hold fast the Traditions which you 
have received, whether hy word or hy our epistle " ? 
(2 Thess. ii. 14). "Hence it is evident that the 
Apostles did not deliver everything by Epistle, but 
many things also without letters. They are, how- 
ever, wortliy of the same faith, these as much as 
those," are the words of S. ' Chrysostom in his com- 
mentary on this place. 

This S. John likewise confirms : Having more things 
to write to you, I would not by paper and ink : for I 
hope that I shall be with you and speak face to face 
(Epp. 2, 3). They were things worthy of being 
written, yet he has not done it, but has said them, 
and instead of Scripture has made Tradition. 

148 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

Hold the, form of sound words, which thou hast 
heard from me . . . KeeiJ the good deposited^ said S. 
Pa[ul to his Timothy (2 Ep. i. 14). Was not this 
recommending to him the unwritten Apostolic word ? 
and that is Tradition. And lower down : And the 
things which thou hast heard from me heforc many 
witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall 
he fit to teach others also (ii. 2). What is there more 
clear for Tradition ? Behold the method ; the Apostle 
speaks, the witnesses relate, S. Timothy is to teach it 
to others, and these to others yet. Do we not see 
here a holy substitution and spiritual trusteeship ? 

Does not the same Apostle praise the Corinthians 
for the observances of Tradition ? If this were written 
in the 2nd of Corinthians, one might say that by his 
ordinances he understands those of the ist, though 
the sense of the passage would be forced (but to him 
who does not want to move every shadow is an ex- 
cuse) ; but this is written in the ist (xi. 2). He 
speaks not of any gospel, for he would not call it my 
ordinances. What was it then but an unwritten 
Apostolic doctrine ? — this we call Tradition. And 
when he says to them at the end : The rest I will set 
in order when I come, he lets us see that he had taught 
them many very important things, and yet we have 
no writing about them elsewhere. Will what he 
said, then, be lost to the Church ? certainly not ; but 
it has come down by Tradition. Otherwise the 
Apostle would not have deprived posterity of it, and 
would have written it. 

And our Lord says : Many things I have to say to 
you, hut you cannot hear tJiem 71010 (John xvi. 12). I 
ask you, when did he say these things which he had 

ART. III. c. I.] The Rule of FaitJu \ 49 

to say ? Certainly it was either after his Kesurrection, 
during the forty days he was with them, or by the 
coming of the Holy Spirit. But what do we know of 
what he comprehended under the word: — / have 
many things, &c. — if all is written ? It is said indeed 
that he was forty days with them teaching them of 
the Kingdom of God ; but we have neither all his 
apparitions nor what he told them therein. 





Once when Absalom * wished to form a faction against 
his good father, he sat in the way near the gate, and 
said to all who went by : There is no man appointed hy 
the king to hear thee ... that they woidd make me 
jicdge over the land, that all that have business might 
come to me, and I might do them justice. Thus did he 
undermine the loyalty of the Israelites. But how 
many Absaloms have there been in our age, who, to 
seduce and distract the people from obedience to the 
Church, and to lead Christians into revolt, have cried 

* 2 Kings XV. The Saint has used the same illustration, almost in 
the same words, in Part I. c. xii. [Tr.] 

150 The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 

up and down the ways of Germany and of France : 
There is no one appointed by the Lord to hear and 
resolve differences concerning faith and religion ; the 
Church has no power in this matter ! If you consider 
well, Christians, you will see that whoever holds this 
language wishes to be judge himself, though he does 
not openly say so, more cunning than Absalom. I 
have seen one of the most recent books of Theodore 
Beza, entitled : Of the true, essential and visible marks 
of the true Catholic Church ; he seems to me to aim at 
making himself, with his colleagues, judge of all the 
differences which are between us ; he says that the 
conclusion of all his argument is that ^' the true Christ 
is the only true and perpetual mark of the Catholic 
Church," — understanding by true Christ, he says, 
Christ as he has most perfectly declared himself from 
the beginning, whether in the Prophetic or Apostolic 
writings, in what belongs to our salvation. Further on 
he says : " This was what I had to say on the true, 
sole, and essential mark of the true Church, which is 
the written Word, Prophetic and Apostolic, well and 
rightly ministered." Higher up he had admitted that 
there were great difficulties in the Holy Scriptures, 
but not in things which touch faith. In the margin 
he places this warning, which he has put almost every- 
where in the text : " The interpretation of Scripture 
must not be drawn elsewhere than from the Scripture 
itself, by comparing passages one with another, and 
adapting them to the analogy of the faith." And in 
the Epistle to the King of France : " We ask that the 
appeal be made to the holy canonical Scriptures, and 
that, if there be any doubt as to the interpretation of 
them, the correspundence and relation which should 

ART. III. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith, 1 5 1 

exist among these passages of Scripture and the articles 
of faith, be the judge." He there receives the Fathers 
as of authority just as far as they should find their 
foundation in the Scriptures. He continues : " As to 
the point of doctrine we cannot appeal to any irre- 
proachable judge save the Lord himself, who has 
declared all his counsel concerning our salvation by 
the Apostles and the Prophets." He says again that 
" his party are not such as would disavow a single 
Council worthy of the name, general or particular, 
ancient or later, (take note)—" provided," says he, 
" that the touchstone, which is the word of God, be 
used to try it." That, in one word, is what all these 
reformers want — to take Scripture as judge. And to 
this we answer Amen : but we say that our difference 
is not there ; it is here, that in the disagreements we 
shall have over the interpretation, and which will 
occur at every two words, we shall need a judge. 
They answer that we must decide the interpretation 
of Scripture by collating passage with passage and the 
whole with the Symbol of faith. Amen, Amen, we 
say : but we do not ask how we ought to interpret the 
Scripture, but — who shall be the judge ? For after 
having compared passages with passages, and the whole 
with the Symbol of the faith, we find by this passage : 
Thoic art Peter, and u]Jon this rock I will huild my 
C%urch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, 
and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven 
(Matt, xvi.), that S. Peter has been chief minister and 
supreme steward in the Church of God : you say, on 
your side that this passage : The kings of the nations 
lord it over them . . . hut you not so (Luke xxii.), or 
this other (for they are all so weak that I know not 

152 The CatJiolic Controversy. [PARni. 

what may be your main authority) : No one can lay 
another foundation^ &c. (i Cor. iii. 1 1), compared with 
the other passages and the analogy of the faith makes 
you detest a chief minister. The two of us follow 
one same way in our enquiry concerning the truth in 
this question — namely, whether there is in the Church 
a Vicar General of Our Lord — and yet I have arrived 
at the affirmative, and you, you have ended in the 
negative; who now shall judge of our difference? 
Here lies the essential point as between you and me. 

I quite admit, be it said in passing, that he who 
shall enquire of Theodore Beza will say that you have 
reasoned better than I, but on what does he rely for 
this judgment except on what seems good to himself, 
according to the pre-judgment he has formed of the 
matter long ago ? — and he may say what he likes, for 
who has made him judge between you and me ? 

Recognise, Christians, the spirit of division : your 
people send you to the Scriptures ; — we are there be- 
fore you came into the world, and what we believe, we 
find there clear and plain. But, — it must be properly 
understood, adapting passage to passage, the whole 
to the Creed ; — we are at this now fifteen hundred 
years and more. You are mistaken, answers Luther. 
Who told you so ? Scripture. What Scripture ? 
Such and such, collated so, and fitted to the Creed, 
On the contrary, say I, it is you, Luther, who are mis- 
taken : the Scripture tells me so, in such and such a 
passage, nicely joined and adjusted to such and such 
a Scripture, and to the articles of the faith. I am not 
in doubt, as to whether we must give belief to the 
holy Word ; — who knows not that it is in the supreme 
degree of certitude ? What exercises me is the under- 

ART. III. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 153 

standing of this Scripture — the consequences and con- 
clusions drawn from it, which being different beyond 
number and very often contradictory on the same 
point, so that each one chooses his own, one here the 
other there — who shall make me see truth through so 
many vanities ? Who shall give me to see this Scrip- 
ture in its native colour ? For the neck of this dove 
changes its appearance as often as those who look 
upon it change position and distance. The Scripture 
is a most holy and infallible touchstone ; every pro- 
position, which stands this test"^ I accept as most 
faithful and sound. But what am I to do, when I 
have in my hands this proposition : the natural body 
of our Lord is really, substantially and actually in the 
Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I have it touched at 
every angle and on every side, by the express and 
purest word of God, and by the Apostles' Creed. 
There is no place when I do not rub it a hundred 
times, if you like. And the more I examine it the 
finer gold and purer metal do I recognise it to be 
made of. You say that having done the same you 
find base metal in it. What do you want me to do ? 
All these masters have handled it already, and all 
have come to the same decision as I, and with such 
assurance, that in general assemblies of the craft, they 
have turned out all who said differently. Good heavens ! 
who shall resolve our doubts ? We must not speak 
again of the touchstone or it will be said : The wicked 
walk round about (in circuitu) (Ps. xi. 9). We must 
have some one to take it up, and to test the piece 
himself; then he must give judgment, and we must 
submit, both of us, and argue no more. Otherwise 

* See Prelace. 

154 1^^^^ Catholic Controversy. [pakth. 

each one will believe what he likes. Let us take care 
lest with regard to these words we be drawincr the 
Scripture after our notions, instead of following it. If 
the salt hath lost its savour, with what shall it he salted 
(Matt. V. 1 3) ? If the Scripture be the subject of our 
disagreement, who shall decide ? 

Ah ! whoever says that Our Lord has placed us in 
the bark of his Church, at the mercy of the winds 
and of the tide, instead of giving us a skilful pilot 
perfectly at home, by nautical art, with chart and com- 
pass, such a one says that he wishes our destruction. 
Let him have placed therein the most excellent com- 
pass and the most correct chart in the world, what 
use are these if no one knows how to oain from them 
some infallible rule for directing the ship ? Of what 
use is the best of rudders if there is no steersman to 
move it as the ship's course requires ? But if every 
one is allowed to turn it in the direction he thinks 
good, who sees not that we are lost ? 

It is not the Scripture which requires a foreign 
light or rule, as Beza thinks we believe ; it is our 
glosseS; our conclusions, understandings, interpreta- 
tions, conjectures, additions, and other such workings 
of man's brain, which, being unal)le to be quiet, is 
ever busied about new inventions. Certainly we do 
not want a judge to decide between us and God, as 
he seems to infer in his Letter. It is between a man 
such as Calvin, Luther, Beza, and another such as 
Eckius, Fisher, More ; for we do not ask whether 
God understands the Scripture better than we do, but 
whether Calvin understands it better than S. Augus- 
tine or S. Cyprian. S. Hilary says excellently : * 

* Lib. 2. de Trin. 

ART. III. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 155 

" Heresy is in the uiicleistandiiiLr, not in the Scripture, 
and the fault is in the meaning, not in the words." 
and S. Augustine : * " Heresies arise simply from this, 
that good Scriptures are ill-understood, and what is 
ill-understood in them is also rashly and presumptu- 
ously given forth." It is a true Michol's game; it 
is to cover a statue, made expressly, with the clothes 
of David (i Kings xix.) He who looks at it thinks 
he has seen David, but he is deceived, David is 
not there. Heresy covers up, in the bed of its 
brain, the statue of its own opinion in the clothes 
of Holy Scripture. He who sees this doctrine 
thinks he has seen the Holy Word of God, but 
he is mistaken ; it is not there. The words are 
there, but not the meaning. " The Scriptures," says S. 
Jerome, t " consist not in the reading but in the under- 
standing : " that is, faith is not in the knowing the 
words but the sense. And it is here that I think 
I have thoroughly proved that we have need of 
another rule for our faith, besides the rule of Holy 
Scripture. " If the world last long (said Luther once 
by good hap J) it will be again necessary, on account 
of the different interpretations of Scripture which now 
exist, that to preserve the unity of the faith we should 
receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for 
refuge." He acknowledges that formerly they were 
received, and that afterwards they will have to be. 

I have dwelt on this at length, but when it is well 
understood, we have no small means of determining 
a most holy deliberation. 

I say as much of Traditions ; for if each one will 

* In Joan. Tr. xviii, i. f Adv. Lucif. 28. 

+ Contr. Zuing. et (Ecul, 

156 The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 

bring forward Traditions, and we have no judge on 
earth to make in the last resort the difference between 
those which are to be received and those which are 
not, where, I pray you, shall we be ? We have clear 
examples. Calvin finds tliat the Apocalypse is to be 
received, Luther denies it ; the same with the Epistle 
of S. James. Who shall reform these opinions of the 
reformers ? Either the one or the other is ill formed, 
who shall put it right ? Here is a second necessity 
which we have of another rule besides the Word of 

There is, however, a very great difference between 
the first rules and this one. For the first rule, which 
is the Word of God, is a rule infallible in itself, and 
most sufficient to regulate all the understandings in 
the world. The second is not properly a rule of 
itself, but only in so far as it applies the first and 
proposes to us the right doctrine contained in the 
Holy Word. In the same way the laws are said to be 
a rule in civil causes. The judge is not so of himself, 
since his judging is conditioned by the ruling of the 
law ; yet he is, and may well be called, a rule, because 
the application of the laws being subject to variety, 
when he has once made it we must conform to it. 

The Holy Word then is the first law of our faith; 
there remains the application of this rule, which being 
able to receive as many forms as there are brains in 
the world, in spite of all the analogies of the faith, 
there is need further of a second rule to regulate this 
application. There must be doctrine and there must 
be some one to propose it. The doctrine is in the 
Holy Word, but who shall propose it ? The way in 
which one deduces an article of faith is this : the 

ART, m. 0. n.] The Rule of Faith, 157 

Word of God is infallible ; the Word of God declares 
that Baptism is necessary for salvation; therefore 
Baptism is necessary for salvation. The ist Proposi- 
tion cannot be gainsayed, v^^e are at variance with 
Calvin about the 2nd ; — vi^ho shall reconcile ns ? 
Who shall resolve our doubt ? If he who has 
authority to propose can err in his proposition all has 
to be done over again. There must therefore be some 
infallible authority in whose propounding we are 
obliged to acquiesce. The Word of God cannot err, 
He who proposes it cannot err; thus shall all be 
perfectly assured. 



Now is it not reasonable that no private individual 
should attribute to himself this infallible judgment on 
the interpretation or explanation of the Holy Word ? 
— otherwise, where should we be ? Who would be 
willing to submit to the yoke of a private individual ? 
Why of one rather than of another ? Let him talk as 
much as he will of analogy, of enthusiasm, of the 
Lord, of the Spirit, — all this shall never so bind my 
understanding as that, if I must sail at hazard, I will 
not jump into the vessel of my own judgment, rather 
than that of another, let him talk Greek, Hebrew, 
Latin, Tartar, Moorish, and whatever you like. If we 
are to run the risk of erring, who would not choose to 

1 58 The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 

run it rather by following his own fancy, than by 
slavishly following that of Calvin or Luther ? Every- 
body shall give liberty to his wits to run promiscuously 
about amongst opinions the most diverse possible ; and, 
indeed, he will perhaps light on truth as soon as another 
will. But it is impious to believe that Our Lord has 
not left us some supreme judge on earth to whom we 
can address ourselves in our difficulties, and who is so 
infallible in his judgments that we cannot err. 

I maintain that this judge is no other than the 
Church Catholic, which can in no way err in the inter- 
pretations and conclusions she makes with regard to 
the Holy Scripture, nor in the decisions she gives 
concerning the difficulties which are found therein. 
For who has ever heard this doubted of ? 

All that our adversaries can say is that this infalli- 
bility is only true of the invisible Church.^ But they 
arrive at this their opinion of the invisibility of the 
Church by two roads; for some say it is invisible 
because it consists only of persons elect and predesti- 
nate : the others attribute this invisibility to the rareness 
and scattering of the believers and faithful. Of these 
the first consider the Church to be invisible at all 
times, the others say that this invisibility has lasted 
about a thousand years, more or less ; that is, from S. 
Gregory to Luther, during which time the papal 
authority was peaceably established among Christians : 
for they say that during this time there were some 
true Christians in secret, who did not manifest their 
intentions, and were satisfied with thus serving God in 
concealment. This theology is imagination and guess- 
work ; so that others have preferred to say, that during 

* See Preface. 

ART. III. c. II.] The Rtde of Faith. . 159 

those thousand years the Church was neither visible 
nor invisible, but altogether effaced and suffocated by 
impiety and idolatry. Permit me, I beseech you, to 
say the truth freely ; all these words are the incoher- 
encies of fever, they are but dreams had while awake, 
and not worth the dream Nabuchodonosor had while 
asleep. And they are entirely contrary to it if we 
believe Daniel's interpretation ; * for ISTabuchodonosor 
saw a stone cut out of a mountain without hands, which 
went rolling till it overthrew the great statue, and so 
increased that having become a mountain it filled the 
whole earth : this Daniel understood of the Kincf- 
dom of Our Lord, which shall last for ever. If it be 
as a mountain, and a mountain so large as to fill the 
whole earth, how shall it be invisible or secret ? And 
if it last for ever, how shall it have failed a thousand 
years ? And it is certainly of the Kingdom of the 
Church militant that this passage is to be understood ; 
for that of the triumphant will fill heaven, not earth 
only, and will not arise during the time of the other 
Kingdoms, as Daniel's interpretation says, but after 
the consummation of the world. Add to this that to 
be cut from the mountain without hands, belongs to 
the temporal generation of Our Lord, according to 
which he has been conceived in the womb of the 
Virgin, and engendered of her own substance without 
work of man, by the sole benediction of the Holy 
Ghost. Either then Daniel has badly prophesied, or 
the adversaries of the Catholic Church have done so 
when they have said the Church was invisible, hidden 
and destroyed. In God's name have patience ; we 
will go in order and briefly, while showing the vanity 

* Daniel ii 

i6o The Catholic Controversy, [partil 

of those opinions. But we must, before all things, 
say what the Church is. 

Church comes from the Greek word meaning to call. 
Church then signifies an assembly, or company of 
persons called. Synagogue means a flock, to speak 
properly. The assembly of the Jews was called 
Synagogue, that of Christians is called Church : be- 
cause the Jews were as a flock of animals, assembled 
and herded by fear ; Christians are brought together 
by the Word of God, called together in the union of 
charity, by the preaching of the Apostles and their 
successors. "Wherefore S. Augustine has said"^^ that 
the Church is named from convocation, the synagogue 
from flock, because to be convoked belongs more to 
men, to be driven together refers rather to cattle. 
Now it is with good reason that we call the Christian 
people the Church, or convocation, because the first 
benefit God does to a man whom he is about to receive 
into grace is to call him to the Church. Those xoliom 
lie 'predestinated them lie also called, said S. Paul to the 
Eomans (viii. 30); — that is the first effect of his pre- 
destination : — and to the Colossians (iii. 15): Let the 
peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you 
are called in one body. To be called in one body is to 
be called in the Church, and in those comparisons 
which Our Lord makes, in S. Matthew (xx. xxii.), of 
the vineyard and the banquet to the Church, the 
workmen in the vineyard and the guests at the 
banquet, he names the called and invited ones : Many, 
says he, are called, hut few are chosen. The Athenians 
called the assemblage of the citizens the church, an 
assemblage of strangers was called by another name— 

* In Ps. Ixxxi. 

ART. III. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith. 1 6 1 

AiaKkr\(jL^. Whence the word Church belongs pro- 
perly to Christians, who are no more strangers and 
foreigners, hut fellow-citizens of the saints and domestics 
of God (Eph. ii. 19). You see whence is taken the 
word Church, and here is its definition : * The Church 
is a holy university or general company of men united 
and collected together in the profession of one same 
Christian faith ; in the participation of the same 
Sacraments and Sacrifice ; and in obedience to one 
same Vicar and Lieutenant-general on earth of Our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and successor of S. Peter; under 
the charge of lawful Bishops. 

^^^ ^^osf ^^ 



I will not dwell long on this point. You know that 
all we Catholics acknowledge the Pope as Vicar of 
Our Lord. The universal Church acknowledged him 
lately at Trent, when she addressed herself to him for 
confirmation of what she had resolved, and when she 
received his deputies as the ordinary and legitimate 
presiding body of the Council. I should lose time 
also [to prove that] you have no visible head; you 
admit it. You have a supreme Consistory, like those 
of Berne, Geneva, Zurich and the rest, which depend 

* From Ephes. v. 27 ; John xi. 52 ; S. Cyprian de unit Eccl. ; 
Ephes. iv. 4 ; Matt. xvi. ; Heb. vii. 11 ; Ephes. iv. 11, 12. 

1 62 The Catholic Conlroversy, [parth. 

on no other. You are so far from consenting to 
recognise a universal head, that you have not even a 
provincial head. Your ministers are one as good as 
another, and have no prerogative in the Consistory, 
yea, are inferior in knowledge and in vote to the presi- 
dent who is no minister. As for your bishops or 
superintendents, you are not satisfied with lowering 
them to the rank of ministers, but have made them 
inferior, so as to leave nothing in its proper place. 

The English hold their queen as head of their 
church, contrary to the pure Word of God. Not that 
they are mad enough, so far as I know, to consider her 
head of the Catholic Church, but only of those un- 
happy countries. 

In short, there is no one head over all others in 
spiritual things, either amongst you or amongst the rest 
of those who make profession of opposing the Pope. 

How many times and in how many places is the 
Church, as well militant as triumphant, both in Old 
and New Testament, called house and family ! It 
would seem to me lost time to search this out, since it 
is so common in the Scriptures that he who has read 
them will never question it, and he who has not read 
them will find, as soon as he reads them, this form of 
speech in a manner everywhere. It is of the Church 
that S. Paul says to his dear Timothy (i iii. 15). 
That tliou mayest know how thou oughtest to hehave 
thyself in the house of God, which is the Church, . . 
the pillar and ground of the truth. It is of her that 
David says : Blessed are they who dwell in thy house, 
Lord (Ps. Ixxxiii. 5). It is of her that the angel 
said: He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever 
(Luke i. 3 2). It is of her that Our Lord said : In 

ART. III. c. III.] The Rule of Faith, 163 

my Fathers house there are many ma7isions (John xiv. 
2). The kingdom of heaven is like to a master of a 
family, in Matthew, chapter 20, and in a hundred 
thousand other places. 

JSTow the Church being a house and a family, the 
Master thereof can doubtless be but one, Jesus Christ: 
and so is it called house of God. But this Master 
and householder ascending to the right hand of God, 
having left many servants in his house, would leave 
one of them who should be servant-in-chief, and to 
whom the others should be responsible ; wherefore 
Christ said : Who (thinkest thou) is a faithful and wise 
servant, whom his lord hath set over his family (Matt, 
xxiv. 45). In truth, if there were not a foreman in a 
shop, think how the business would be done — or if 
there were not a king in a kingdom, a captain in a 
ship, a father in a family — in fact it would no longer 
be a family. But hear Our Lord in S. Matthew (xii.) : 
Every city or house divided against itself shall not 
stand. Never can a province be well governed by 
itself, above all if it be large. I ask you, gentlemen 
so wise, who will have no head in the Church, can you 
give me an example of any government of importance 
in which all the particular governments are not re- 
duced to one ? We may pass over the Macedonians, 
Babylonians, Jews, Medes, Persians, Arabians, Syrians, 
French, Spaniards, English, and a vast number of 
eminent states, in regard to which the matter is 
evident ; but let us come to republics. Tell me, 
where have you ever seen any great province which 
has governed itself ? Nowhere. The chief part of the 
world was at one time in the Eoman Eepublic, but a 
single Eome governed; a single Athens, Carthage, 

164 The Catholic Controversy. [paeth. 

and so of the other ancient republics ; a single Venice, 
a single Genoa, a single Lucerne, Fribourg and the 
rest. You will never find that the single parts of 
some notable and great province have set to work to 
govern themselves. But it was, is, and will be neces- 
sary that one man alone, or one single body of men 
residing in one place, or one single town, or some 
small portion of a province, has governed the province 
if the rest of the province were large. You, gentlemen, 
who delight in history, I am assured of your suffrages; 
you will not let me be contradicted. But supposing 
(which is most false) that some particular province 
was self-governed, how can this be said of the Christian 
Church, which is so universal that it comprehends all 
the world ? How could it be one if it governed itself? 
And if not, there would be need to have a council of 
all the bishoprics always standing — and who would 
convoke it ? It would be necessary for all the bishops 
to be absent ; — and how could that be ? And if all 
the bishops were equal, who would call them to- 
gether ? And how great a difficulty would it be, if 
there were some doubt in a matter of faith, to 
assemble a council ! It cannot then possibly be that 
the whole Church and each part thereof should govern 
itself, without dependence of one part on the other. 

Now, since I have sufficiently proved that one part 
should depend on another, I ask which part it is on 
which the dependence should be, whether a province, 
or a city, or an assembly, or a single person ? If a 
province, where is it ? It is not England, for when 
it was Catholic [it did not claim this right]. Where 
is it ? and why this one rather than that ? Besides 
no province has ever claimed this privilege. If it be 

ART. III. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 165 

a city, it must be one of the Patriarchal ones : now of 
the Patriarchal cities there are but five, Kome, Antioch, 
Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem. Which 
of the five ? — all are pagan except Eome. If then it 
must be a city, it is Eome ; if an assembly, it is that 
at Eome. But no; it is not a province, not a town, 
not a simple and perpetual assembly ; it is a single 
man, established head over all the Church : A faithful 
and 'prudent servant wliom the Lord hath appointed. 
Let us conclude then that Our Lord, when leaving 
this world, in order to leave all his Church united, 
left one single governor and lieutenant-general, to 
whom we are to have recourse in all our necessities. 

Which being so^, I say to you that this servant 
general, this dispenser and governor, this chief steward 
of the house of Our Lord is S. Peter, who on this 
account can truly say : Lord, for L am thy servant 
(Ps. cxv. 16), and not only servant but doubly so: 
/ am thy servant, because they who rule well are worthy 
of douUe honour (i Tim. v. 17). And not only thy 
servant, but also son of thy handmaid. When there is 
some servant of the family kin he is trusted the more, 
and the keys of the house are willingly entrusted 
to him. It is therefore not without cause that I 
introduce S. Peter saying: Lord, for I am thy 
servant, &c. For he is a good and faithful servant, to 
whom, as to a servant of the same kin, the Master has 
given the keys : To thee L will give the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven. 

S. Luke shows us clearly that S. Peter is this 
servant ; for after having related that Our Lord had 
said by way of warning to his disciples (Luke xii.) : 
Messed are those servants whom the Lord when he 

1 66 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

Cometh shall find imtching : Amen I say to you, that 
he ivill gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, 
and passing will minister to them: — S. Peter alone 
asked Our Lord : Dost thou speaJc this parable to us, or 
likewise to all? Our Lord answering S. Peter does 
not say: Who (thinkest thou) are the faithful servants? 
• — as he had said : Blessed are those servants, — but : 
Who {thinkest thou) is the faithful and wise steward 
whom his Lord setteth over his family to give them 
their measure of wheat in due season ? And in fact 
Theophylact here says that S. Peter asked this question 
as having the supreme charge of the Church, and 
S. Ambrose in the 7th book on S. Luke, says that the 
first words, blessed, &c. refer to all, but the second, who, 
thinkest thou, refer to the bishops, and much more pro- 
perly to the supreme bishop. Our Lord, then, answers 
S. Peter as meaning to say : what I have said in general 
applies to all, but to thee particularly : for whom dost 
thou think to be the prudent and faithful servant ? 

And truly, if we sift this parable a little, who can 
be the servant who is to distribute the bread except 
S. Peter, to whom the charge of feeding the others has 
been given : — feed my sheep ? When the master of 
the house goes out he gives the keys to the chief 
steward and procurator ; and, is it not to S. Peter that 
Our Lord said: / will give to thee the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven ? Everytliing has reference to the 
governor, and the rest of the officers depend on him 
for their authority, as all the building does upon the 
foundation ; thus S. Peter is called the stone on which 
the Church is founded : Thou art Cephas, and upon 
this rock, &c. Now Cephas means a stone in Syriac 
as well as in Hebrew; but the Latin translator has 

^fiT. III. c. iii.j The Rtite of Faith, 167 

said Peirus, because in Greek there is Trerpo^, which 
also means stone, like petra. And Our Lord in S. 
Matthew, chapter vii., says that the wise man builds 
and founds his house on the rock, supra petram* 
Whereof the devil, the father of lies, the ape of Our 
Lord, has wished to make a sort of imitation, founding 
his miserable heresy principally in a diocese of S. 
Peter,t and in a Rochelle.'^ 

Further, Our Lord requires that this servant should 
be prudent and faithful. And St. Peter truly has 
these two qualities ; for how could prudence be 
wanting to him, since neither flesh nor blood directs 
him but the heavenly Father ? And how could 
fidelity fail him, since Our Lord said : / have prayed 
for thee that thy faith fail not (Luke xxii. 32)? — and 
he, we must believe, was heard for his reverence (Heb. 
V. 7). And that he was heard he gives an excellent 
testimony when he adds : And thou heing converted, 
confirm thy brethren. As if he would say : I have 
prayed for thee, and therefore be the confirmer of the 
others, because for the others I have only prayed that 
they may have a secure refuge in thee. Let us then 
conclude that as Our Lord was one day to quit his 
Church as regards his corporal and visible being, he 
left a visible lieutenant and vicar general, namely S. 
Peter, who could therefore rightly say : Lord, for I 
am thy servant. 

You will say to me : Our Lord is not dead, and 
moreover is always with his Church, why then do you 
give him a vicar ? I answer you that not being dead 
he has no successor but only a vicar; and moreover 

* Note the pronoun Tianc. f Geneva. [Tr.] 

X Little rock. [Tr.] 

1 68 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

that he truly assists his Church in all things and 
everywhere by his invisible favour, but, in order not 
to make a visible body without a visible head, he has 
willed further to assist it in the person of a visible 
lieutenant, by means of whom, besides invisible favours, 
he perpetually administers his Church, and in a man- 
ner suitable to the sweetness of his providence. You 
will tell me, again, that there is no other foundation 
than Our Lord in the Church : No one can lay another 
foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ 
Jesus (i Cor. iii. ii). I grant you that as well the 
Church militant as the triumphant is supported and 
founded on Our Lord, as on the principal foundation : 
but Isaias has foretold to us that in the Church there 
were to be two foundations. In chapter xxviii. : Be- 
hold I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion, a 
tried stone, a corner stone, a ^precious stone, founded in 
the foundation. I know how a great personage explains 
it, but it seems to me that that passage of Isaias 
ought certainly to be interpreted without going outside 
chapter xvi. of St. Matthew, in the Gospel of to-day.* 
There then Isaias, complaining of the Jews and of their 
prophets, in the person of Our Lord, because they 
would not believe : — Command, command again ; expect, 
expect again, and what follows, — adds : Therefore thus 
saith the Lord : and hence it was the Lord who said : 
Behold I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion. 
He says in the foundations, because although the other 
Apostles were foundations of the Church : {And the 
wall of the city, says the Apocalypse (xxi. 14), had 
twelve foundations, and in them the twehe names of 
the twelve apostles of the Lamh : — and elsewhere : Built 
* Probably S. Peter's Chair, Jan. or Feb. 1596. [Tr.] 

ART. III. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith. 169 

wpon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Jesus 
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20) : 
— and the Psalmist (Ixxvi.) : The foundations thereof 
are in the holy mountains), yet, amongst all, there is 
one who by excellence and in the highest sense is 
called stone and foundation, and it is he to whom Our 
Lord said : Thou art Cephas, that is, stone, tried stone. 
Listen to St. Matthew : he declares that Our Lord 
will lay a tried stone ; — what trying would you have 
other than this : whom do men say that the Son of man 
is ? A hard question, which St. Peter, explaining the 
secret and difficult mystery of the communication of 
idioms, answers so much to the point that more could 
not be, and gives proof that he is truly a stone, saying : 
Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. Isaias 
continues and says : a precious stone ; hear the esteem 
in which Our Lord holds St. Peter : Blessed art thou, 
Simon Barjona : — corner stone ; Our Lord does not say 
that he will build only a wall of the church, but the 
whole, — My Church ; he is then a corner-stone : — 
founded in the foundation ; he shall be a foundation, 
but not first : for there will be another foundation — 
Christ himself Icing the chief corner-stone. See how 
Isaias explains St. Matthew, and St. Matthew Isaias. 

I should never end if I would say all that comes 
to my mind when I have this subject before me. 
Now let us see the conclusion of it all. The true 
Church ought to have a visible head in its government 
and administration ; yours has none, therefore it is not 
the true church. On the other hand, there is in the 
world one true Church and lawful, which has a visible 
head : no one has [but ours], therefore ours is the true 
Church. Let us pass on. 

170 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 



Is Jesus Christ divided ? No, surely, for he is the 
God of peace, not of dissension, as S. Paul taught 
throughout the Church. It cannot then be that the 
true Church should be in dissension or division of 
belief and opinion, for God would no longer be its 
Author or Spouse, and, like a kingdom divided 
against itself, it would be brought to desolation. As 
soon as God takes a people to himself, as he has done 
the Church, he gives it unity of heart and of path : 
the Church is but one body, of which all the faithful 
are members, compacted and united together by all 
its joints; there is but one spirit animating this 
body : God is in his holy place : who maketh men of 
one manner to dwell in a house (Ps. Ixvii. 7) ; there- 
fore the true Church of God must be united, fastened 
and joined together in one same doctrine and belief. 

It is necessary, says S. Irenseus (iii. 3) that all the 
faithful should come together and unite themselves to 
the Roman Church [on account of] its superior ruling 
power. She is the mother of their sacerdotal dignity, 
says Julius I. (ad Euseb.) " She is the commence- 
ment of the unity of the priesthood, she is the bond of 
unity," says S. Cyprian (Ep. 55). Again : " We are 
not ignorant that there is but one God, one Christ and 

ART. III. c. IV.] The Rule of Faith. 171 

Lord, whom we have confessed, one Holy Spirit, one 
pastoral office (episcopatus) in the Catholic Church " 
(xlvi. inter Ep.). The good Optatus also said to the 
Donatists (ii. 2, 3) : " Thou canst not deny that 
thou knowest that in the city of Eome the chief 
chair has been first granted to S. Peter, in which sat 
the chief of the Apostles, S. Peter, whence he was 
called Cephas ; the chair in which the unity- of the 
whole was preserved, in order that the other Apostles 
might not seek to put forward and maintain each his 
own, and that henceforward he might be a schismatic 
who would set up another chair against this one 
chair. Therefore in this one chair, which is the first 
of its prerogatives, was first seated S. Peter." These 
are almost the words of this ancient and holy doctor ; 
and every Catholic of this age is of the same convic- 
tion. We hold the Eoman Church to be our refuge 
in all our difficulties ; we all are her humble children, 
and receive our food from the milk of her breasts ; we 
are all branches of this most fruitful stock, and draw 
no sap of doctrine save from this root. This is what 
clothes us all with the same livery of belief; for 
knowing that there is one chief and lieutenant general 
in the Church, what he decides and determines with 
the other prelates of the Church when he is seated in 
the chair of Peter to teach Christendom, serves as law 
and measure to our belief. Let there be error every- 
where throughout the world, yet you will see the 
same faith in Catholics. And if there be any differ- 
ence of opinion, either it will not be in things belong- 
ing to the faith, or else, as soon as ever a General 
Council or the Eoman See shall have determined it, you 
will see every one submit to their decision. Our under- 

172 The Catholic Controversy, [part 11. 

standings do not stray away from one another in their 
belief, but keep most closely united and linked together 
by the bond of the superior authority of the Church, to 
which each one gives in with all humility, steadying 
his faith thereon, as upon the pillar and ground of 
truth. Our Catholic Church has but one language and 
one same form of words throughout the whole earth. 

On the contrary, gentlemen, your first ministers 
had no sooner got on their feet, they had no sooner 
begun to build a tower of doctrine and science which 
was visibly to reach the heavens, and to acquire them 
the great and magnificent reputation of reformers, than 
God, wishing to traverse this ambitious design, per- 
mitted amongst them such a diversity of language and 
belief, that they began to contradict one another so 
violently that all their undertaking became a miser- 
able Babel and confusion. What contradictions has 
not Luther's reformation produced! I should never 
end if I would put them all on this paper. He who 
would see them should read that little book of 
Frederick Staphyl's de concordid discordi, and Sanders, 
Book 7 of his Visible Monarchy, and G-abriel de Preau, 
in the Lives of Heretics: I will only say what you 
cannot be ignorant of, and what I now see before my 

You have not one same canon of the Scriptures: 
Luther will not have the Epistle of S. James, which 
you receive. Calvin holds it to be contrary to the 
Scripture that there is a head in the Church; the 
English hold the reverse : the French Huguenots 
hold that according to the Word of God priests are 
not less than bishops ; the English have bishops who 
govern priests, and amongst them two archbishops, 

ART. III. c. IV.] The Rule of Faith. i 'j'i) 

one of whom is called 'primate, a name which Calvin 
so greatly detests : the Puritans in England hold as 
an article of faith that it is not lawful to preach, 
baptize, pray, in the Churches which were formerly 
Catholic, but they are not so squeamish in these parts. 
And note my saying that they make it an article of 
faith, for they suffer both prison and banishment 
rather than give it up. Is it not well known that at 
Geneva they consider it a superstition to keep any 
saint's day ?■ — yet in Switzerland some are kept ; and 
you keep one of Our Lady. The point is not that 
some keep them and others do not, for this would be 
no contradiction in religious belief, but that what you 
and some of the Swiss observe the others condemn as 
contrary to the purity of religion. Are you not 
aware that one of your greatest ministers teaches that 
the body of our Lord is as far from the Lord's Supper 
as heaven is from earth, and are you not likewise aware 
that this is held to be false by many others ? Has 
not one of your ministers lately confessed the reality of 
Christ's body in the Supper, and do not the rest deny 
it ? Can you deny me that as regards Justification 
you are as much divided against one another as you 
are against us : — witness that anonymous contro- 
versialist. In a word, each man has his own language, 
and out of as many Huguenots as I have spoken to I 
have never found two of the same belief. 

But the worst is, you are not able to come to an 
agreement: — for where will you find a trusted arbi- 
trator ? You have no head upon earth to address 
yourselves to in your difficulties ; you believe that the 
very Church can err herself and lead others into 
error : you would not put your soul into such unsafe 

1 74 The Catholic Controversy, [part n. 

hands ; indeed, you hold her in small account. The 
Scripture cannot be your arbiter, for it is concerning 
the Scripture that you are in litigation, some of you 
being determined to have it understood in one way, 
some in another. Your discords and your disputes 
are interminable, unless you give in to the authority 
of the Church. Witness the Colloquies of Lune- 
bourg, of Malbron, of Montbeliard, and that of Berne 
recently. Witness Tilman Heshusius and Erastus, 
to whom I add Brenz and BuUinger. Take the great 
division there is amongst you about the number of the 
Sacraments. Now, and ordinarily amongst you, only 
two are taught ; Calvin made three, adding to Baptism 
and the Supper, Order ; Luther here puts Penance for 
the third, then says there is but one : in the end, the 
Protestants, at the Colloquy of Eatisbonne, at which 
Calvin assisted, as Beza testifies in his life, confessed 
that there were seven Sacraments. How is it you are 
divided about the article of the almightiness of God ? 
— one party denying that a body can by the divine 
power be in two places, others denying absolute 
almightiness ; others make no such denials. But if I 
would show you the great contradictions amongst those 
whom Beza acknowledges to be glorious reformers of 
the Church, namely, Jerome of Prague, John Hus, 
Wicliff, Luther, Bucer, CEcolampadius, Zuingle, Pomer- 
anius and the rest, I should never come to an end : 
Luther can sufficiently inform you as to the good 
harmony there is amongst them, in the lamentation 
which he makes a^^ainst the Zuinsflians and Sacramen- 
tarians, whom he calls Absaloms and Judases, and 
fanatic spirits (in the year 1527). 

His deceased Highness of most happy memory, 

ART. III. c. IV.] The Rule of Faith. 175 

Emmanuel [of Savoy], related to the learned Anthony 
Possevin, that at the Colloquy of Worms when the 
Protestants were asked for their profession of faith, 
they all one after the other departed from the assembly, 
as being unable to agree together. That great prince, 
most worthy of trust, relates this as having been 
present there. All this division has its foundation in 
the contempt which you have for a visible head on earth, 
because, not being bound as to the interpretation of 
God's Word by any superior authority, each one takes 
the side which seems good to him. This is what the 
wise man says, that among the proud there are always 
contentions^ which is a true mark of heresy. Those 
who are divided into several parties cannot be called 
by the name of Church, because, as S. Chrysostom 
says, the name of Christ is a name of agreement and 
concord. But as for us, we all have the same canon 
of the Scriptures, one same head, one like rule for 
interpreting them ; you have a diversity of canon, and 
in the understanding you have as many heads and 
rules as you are persons. We all sound the trumpet 
of one single Gideon, and have all one same spirit of 
faith in the Lord, and in his Vicar, the sword of the 
decisions of God and the Church, according to the 
words of the Apostles : It hath seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost and to us A This unity of language 
amongst us is a true sign that we are the army of the 
Lord, and you can but be acknowledged as Madianites, 
whose opinions are only cries and shouts : each in 
your own fashion you slash at one another, cutting 
one another's throats, and cutting your own throats 
by your dissensions, as God says by IsaiasJ: The 
* Prov xiii. la t Acts xv. 28. + Isa. xix. 

176 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

Egyptians shall fight against the Egyptians . . . and 
the spirit of Egypt shall be broken. And S. Augustine 
says that as Donatus had tried to divide Christ, so he 
himself was by a daily separation of his party divided 
within himself. 

This mark [of unity] alone ought to make you quit 
your pretended church, for he who is not with God is 
against God. God is not in your church, for he only 
inhabits a place of peace, and in your church there is 
neither peace nor concord. 



The Church of Our Lord is holy ; this is an article of 
faith. Our Lord has given himself for it, that he may 
sanctify it. It is a holy nation, says St. Peter ( i . ii. 
9). The bridegroom is holy, and the bride holy. She 
is holy as being dedicated to God, as the Elders under 
the ancient synagogue were called holy on this account 
alone ; she is holy again because the Spirit who in- 
forms her is holy, and because she is the mystical 
body of a head who is called most holy ; she is holy, 
moreover, because all her actions, interior and exterior, 
are holy ; she neither believes nor hopes nor loves but 
holily ; in her prayers, sermons, sacraments, sacrifices, 
she is holy. But this Church has her interior sanctity, 
according to the word of David (Ps. xliv. 14): All 
the glory of the King's daughter is within ; she has also 
her exterior sanctity in golden borders clothed about 

ABT. III. 0. VI.] The Rule of Faith, 177 

with varieties (lb.) The interior sanctity cannot be 
seen; the exterior cannot serve as a mark, because all 
tlie sects vaunt it, and because it is hard to recognise 
the true prayer, preaching and administration of the 
Sacraments ; but beyond this there are signs by which 
God makes his Church known, which are as it were 
perfumes and odours ; as the Spouse says in the 
Canticles (iv. 11): The smell of thy garments as the 
smell of frankincense. Thus can we by the scent of 
these odours and perfumes run after and find the true 
Church and the trace of the son of the unicornf'^ 


SECOND MAEK {continued), the true church ought 


The Church then has milk and honey under her tongue 
and in her heart, which is interior sanctity, and which 
we cannot see : she is richly dight with a fair robe, 
beautifully bordered with varieties, which are her ex- 
terior sanctities, which can be seen. But because the 
sects and heresies disguise their clothing, and by false 
stuffs make them look like hers, she has, besides that, 
perfumes and odours which are her own, and these 
are certain signs and shinings of her sanctity, which 
are so peculiarly hers, that no other society can boast 
of having them, particularly in our age. 

For, first, she shines in miracles, which are a most 
sweet odour and perfume, and are express signs of the 
* Referring probably to Psalm xxviii. 6. [Tr.] 

in, M 

lyS The Catholic Conlroversy. [part n. 

presence of the immortal God with her, as S. Augus- 
tine styles them. And, indeed, when Our Lord quitted 
this world he promised that the Church should be 
filled with miracles : These signs, he said, shall follow 
them that helieve : in my name they shall cast out devils, 
they shall speak with new tongites : they shall take up 
serpents, poison shall not hurt them, and by the imposi- 
tion of hands they shall heal the sick/''' 

Consider, I pray you, these words closely, (i) He 
does not say that the Apostles only would work these 
miracles, but simply, those who believe: (2) he does 
not say that every believer in particular would work 
miracles, but that those who believe will be followed 
by these signs : (3) he does not say it was only for 
them — ten or twenty years — but simply that miracles 
will follow them that believe. Our Lord, then, speaks 
to the Apostles only, but not for the Apostles only ; he 
speaks of the faithful ; of the body and general congre- 
gation t of the Church ; he speaks absolutely, without 
limitation of time ; let us take his holy words in the 
extent which Our Lord has given them. The believers 
are in the Church, the believers are followed by mira- 
cles, therefore in the Church there are miracles : there 
are believers in all times, the believers are followed by 
miracles, therefore in all times there are miracles. 

But let us examine a little why the power of 
miracles was left in the Church. There is no doubt 
it was to confirm the Gospel preaching ; for S. Mark 
so testifies, and S. Paul, who says that God gave 
testimony by miracles to the faith which they an- 

* Mark uU. 

+ Six words in the MS. here cannot be distinctly ascertained, but 
their sense is obvious. [Tr.] 

ART. III. c. VI.] The Rule of Faith. 179 

nounced.* God placed these instruments in the hand 
of Moses, that he might be believed : wherefore Our 
Lord said that if he had not done miracles the Jews 
would not have been oblisred to believe him. Well 
now, must not the Church ever fight with infidelity ? 
— and why then would you take away from her this 
good stick which God has put into her hand ? I am 
well aware that she has not so much need of it as at 
the beginning ; now that the holy plant of the faith 
has taken firm and good root, one need not water it 
so often ; but, all the same, to wish to have the effect 
altogether taken away, the necessity and cause re- 
maining intact, is poor philosophy. 

Besides, I beg you to show me at what period the 
visible Church may have been without miracles, from 
the time that it began until this present ? In the time 
of the Apostles there were miracles beyond number; 
you know that well. After that time, who knows not 
the miracles, related by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, 
worked by the prayers of the legion of Christian 
soldiers who were in his army, which on this account 
was called thundering ? Who knows not the miracles 
of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, S. Martin, S. Anthony, 
S. Nicholas, S. Hilarion, and the wonders concerninsr 
Theodosius and Constantine, for which we have authors 
of irreproachable authority — Eusebius, Eufinus, S. 
Jerome, Basil, Sulpicius, Athanasius ? Who knows not 
again what happened at the Invention of the Holy 
Cross, and in the time of Julian the Apostate ? In 
the time of SS. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, many 
miracles were seen, which they themselves relate: 
why then would you have the same Church now cease 

* I Cor. ii. 4. 

i8o The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

from miracles ? What reason would there be ? In 
truth, what we have always seen, in all varieties of 
times, accompanying the Church, we cannot do other- 
wise than call a property of the Church. 

The true Church then makes her sanctity appear 
by miracles. And if God made so admirable the 
Propitiatory, and his Sinai, and his Burning Bush, 
because he wished to speak with men, why shall he 
not have made miraculous this his Church in which 
he wills to dwell for ever ? 



Here now I desire that you show yourselves reason- 
able, free from quibbling and from obstinacy. It is 
found on informations duly and authentically taken 
that about the commencement of this century S. 
Francis of Paula was renowned for undoubted miracles, 
such as are the raising of the dead to life. We find 
the same as to S. Diego of Alcala. These are not 
uncertain rumours, but proved, signed informations, 
taken in regular process of law. 

Would you dare to deny the apparition of the 
cross granted to the valiant captain Albukerque, and 
to all those in his fleet, which so many historians 
describe,"^ and so many persons had part in ? 

* See Raynald, ad an. 15 13. [Tr.] 

ART. III. c. VII.] The Ride of Faith. 1 8 1 

The devout Gaspar Berzee, in the Indies, healed the 
sick by simply praying to God for them in the Mass, 
and so suddenly that other than God's hand could not 
have done it. 

The Blessed Francis Xavier has healed the paralysed, 
the deaf, the dumb, the blind, and raised a dead man 
to life ; his body has had power to remain entire 
though buried with lime, as those have testified who 
saw it entire fifteen years after his death ; and these 
two died within the last forty-five years. 

In Meliapor has been found a cross cut on a stone, 
which is considered to have been buried by the Chris- 
tians in the time of S. Thomas. A wonderful but 
true thing ! — almost every year, about the feast of this 
glorious Apostle, that cross sweats a quantity of blood, 
or liquid like blood, and changes colour, becoming 
white, pale, then black, and sometimes blue, brilliant 
and then of softer hue, and at last it returns to its 
natural colour : this many people have seen, and the 
Bishop of Cochin sent a public attestation of it to the 
holy Council of Trent. Miracles, therefore, are worked 
in the Indies, where the faith is not yet established, 
a whole world of which I leave on one side, in order 
to observe due brevity. 

The good Father Louis of Granada, in his Introduc- 
tion on the Creed, narrates many recent and unquestion- 
able miracles. Amongst others he brings forward the 
cures which the Catholic kings of France have worked 
in our age, even in incurable cases of king's evil, by 
saying no more than these words : May God heal you ; 
— and the king touches the person, no other disposi- 
tion being required than Confession and Communion 
on that day. 

1 82 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

I have read the history of the miraculous cure of 
James, son of Claude Andrew, of Belmont, in the 
bailiwick of Baulme in Burgundy. He had been help- 
less during eight years ; after making his devotions in 
the Church of S. Claude, on the very day of the feast, 
8th June 1588, he found himself immediately cured. 
Do you not call that a miracle ? I am speaking of 
things in the neighbourhood ; I have read the public 
act, I have spoken to the notary who took it and sent 
it, rightly and duly signed — Vion. Witnesses were 
not wanting, for there were people in crowds. But 
why do I stay to bring forward the miracles of our 
age ? S. Malachy, S. Bernard, and S. Francis — were 
they not of our Church ? You cannot deny it. Those 
who have written their lives are most holy and learned 
men, for S. Bernard himself has written that of S. 
Malachy, and S. Bonaventure that of S. Francis, men 
who lacked neither knowledge nor conscientiousness, 
and still many miracles are related therein. But, above 
all, the wonders which take place now, at our gates, in 
the sight of our princes and of our whole Savoy, near 
Mondovi, ought to close the door against all obstinacy. 

Now, what will you say to this ? Will you say 
that Antichrist will do miracles ? S. Paul testifies 
that they will be false, "^^^ and the greatest S. Johu 
mentions is that he will make fire descend from 
heaven ; Satan can work miracles, indeed has done so, 
no doubt, but God will leave a prompt remedy with his 
Church; for, to those false miracles, the servants of God, 
Elias and Enoch, as the Apocalypse and interpreters 
witness, will oppose other miracles of very different 
make. For not only will they employ fire to punish 

* 1 Thess. ii, 9. 

AiiT. III. u. VII.] The Rtile of Faith. 1 8 


their enemies miraculously, but will have power to 
shut the heaveus so that there may be no rain, to 
change and convert the waters into blood, and to strike 
the earth with what chastisements they like for three 
days and a half: after their death they shall rise 
again and ascend to heaven ; the earth shall tremble 
at their ascension. Then, therefore, by the opposition 
of the true miracles, the illusions of Antichrist will be 
discovered ; and as Moses at last made the magicians 
of Pharaoh confess : The finger of God is here, so Elias 
and Enoch will effect that their enemies shall give 
glory to the God of heaven : Elias will do at that time 
some of those holy prophet's deeds of his, which he 
did of old to put down the impiety of the Baalites and 
other professors of false religions. 

I wish then to say : ( i ) that the miracles of Anti- 
christ are not such as those we bringj forward for the 
Church ; and therefore it does not follow that if those 
are not marks of the Church these likewise are not so. 
The former will be proved false and be overcome by 
greater and more solid ones, the latter are solid, and 
no one can oppose to them more certain ones : (2) 
the wonders of Antichrist will be simply an illusion of 
three years and a half ; but the miracles of the Church 
are so properly hers, that since her foundation she has 
always shone in miracles. The miracles of Antichrist 
will be unnatural, and will not endure ; but in the 
Church they are grafted as it were naturally on her 
supernatural nature, and therefore they ever accom- 
pany her, to verify these words : These signs shall 
follow them that believe. 

You will be ready to say that the Donatists worked 
miracles, according to S. Augustine : but they were 

184 The Catholic Controversy, [partil 

only certain visions and revelations of which they 
themselves boasted, without any public testimony. 
Certainly the Church cannot be proved true by these 
private revelations ; on the contrary, these visions 
themselves cannot be proved or held as true save by 
the testimony of the Church, says the same S. Augus- 
tine. And if Vespasian healed a blind and a lame 
man, the doctors themselves, according to Tacitus, 
decided that it was a blindness and an infirmity which 
were not incurable : it is no marvel then if the devil 
was able to heal them. A Jew having been baptized 
went and presented himself to Paulus, a Novatian 
bishop, to be rebaptized, says Socrates ; * the water of 
the font immediately disappeared. This wonder was 
not to confirm the truth of Novatianism, but of holy 
Baptism, which it was not right to repeat. In the 
same manner were some wonders done amongst the 
Pagans, says S. Augustine, not in proof of Paganism, 
but of innocence, virginity, fidelity, which, wherever 
they are, are loved and valued by God who is the 
author thereof. Further, these wonders are done but 
rarely, and from them no conclusion can be drawn : 
the clouds sometimes give forth light, but it is only 
the sun which has for its mark and property the 
giving of light. Let us then conclude this subject : 
the Church has always been accompanied by miracles, 
solid and certain as those of her Spouse ; therefore she 
is the true Church : for, to use the argument of the 
good Nicodemus (John iii. 2) in like case, I will say : 
No society can do these miracles which this does, so 
glorious and so continual, unless God was with it. 
And what did our Lord say to the disciples of S. 

* vii. 17. 

ART. III. c. VII. J The Rule of Faith. 185 

John (Matt. xi. 5) : 8ay, the hlind see, the lame walk, the 
deaf hear, to show that he was the Messias. Hearing 
that in the Church are done such grand miracles, we 
must conclude that the Lord is indeed in this place 
(Gen. xxviii. 16). But as regards your pretended 
Church, I can say nothing more to it than : If it can 
believe, all things are possible to him that believes 
(Mark ix. 22) : if it were the true Church it would 
be followed by miracles. You acknowledge to me 
that it is not your province to work miracles, nor to 
drive out devils ; once it turned out ill with one of 
your great masters who wanted to try it, — so says 
Bolsec. " Those raised up the living from the dead," 
says Tertullian,^ " these make dead men out of the 
living." A rumour is current that one of yours has 
once cured a demoniac ; it is however not stated when 
or how the person was cured, nor what witnesses there 
were. It is easy for apprentices to a trade to make 
a mistake in their first trial. Certain reports are 
often started amongst you to keep the simple people 
going, but having no author they must be without 
authority. Besides this, in driving out the devil we 
must not so much regard what is done as we must 
consider the manner and the form in which it is done ; 
if it is by the rightful prayers, and invocations of the 
name of Jesus Christ. Again, one swallow does not 
make the summer; it is the perpetual and ordinary 
succession of miracles which is the mark of the true 
Church, not something accidental. But it would be 
fighting with a shadow and with air to refute this 
rumour, which is so timid and so feeble that nobody 
ventures to say from which side it came. 

* De Prflesc. xxx. 

1 86 The Catholic Controversy, [paetil 

The total answer that I have got from you in this 
extreme necessity is that people do you a wrong when 
they ask miracles from you. And so they do, I agree 
with you ; it would be turning you into ridicule, like 
asking a blacksmith to make an emerald or a diamond. 
Nor do I ask any from you : only I request you to 
confess frankly that you have not made your appren- 
ticeship with the Apostles, Disciples, Martyrs and Con- 
fessors, who have been masters of the craft. 

But when you say you have no need of miracles, 
because you do not want to establish a new faith, tell 
me then again whether S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. 
Gregory, S. Ambrose and the rest preached a new 
doctrine. And why then were there done miracles so 
great and so numerous as theirs ? Certainly the Gospel 
was better received in the world than it is at present ; 
there were then pastors more excellent ; many martyrs 
and miracles had gone before; but the Church was 
still not wanting in that gift of miracles, for the 
greater glory of most holy religion. Or if miracles 
were to cease in the Church, it would have been in 
the time of Constantine the Great, after the Empire 
had become Christian, the persecutions had ceased and 
Christianity been quite secured ; but so far were they 
from ceasing then that they were multiplied on all sides. 

Moreover, the doctrine which you preach has 
never. been proclaimed, either in general or in detail; 
your heretical predecessors have preached it, with 
each of whom you agree on some points, and with 
all on none, as I will make clear afterwards. Where 
was your church eighty years ago ? It has only 
just begun, and you call it old. Ah ! you say, we 
have made no new Church, we have rubbed up and 

ART. m. 0. VII.] The Rtile of Faith. 187 

cleaned the old money, which, having long lain in 
decayed buildings, had become discoloured, and 
encrusted with dirt and mould. Say that no more, I 
beg you, that you have the metal and the mould. 
Are not the faith, the Sacraments, necessary ingredi- 
ents in the composition of the Church ? — and 
you have changed everything both in the one and 
the other. You are then false coiners, if you do not 
show the power which you claim to put these stamps 
on the King's coin. But let us not delay on this. 
Have you purified this Church, have you cleaned this 
money ? Show us then the characters which it had 
when you say that it fell on the ground and began to 
get rusty. It fell, you say, in the time of S. Gregory, 
or a little after. You may say what you like, but at 
that time it had the character of miracles ; — show it 
to us now ? For if you do not show us most unmis- 
takably the inscription of the King on your money, 
we will show it you on ours ; ours will pass as royal 
and good, yours, as being light and clipped, will be 
sent back to the melting-pot. If you would represent 
to us the Church as it was in the time of S. Augustine, 
show it to us not only speaking well but doing well, 
in miracles and holy operations, as it was then. If 
you would say that then it was nearer than it is now, 
I answer that so notable an interruption as that which 
you pretend of nine hundred or a thousand years, 
makes this money so strange that unless we see on it, 
in large letters, the ordinary characters, the inscrip- 
tion and the image, we will never receive it. No, 
uo : the ancient Church was powerful in all seasons, 
in adversity and prosperity, in work and in word, like 
her Spouse ; yours has nought but talk, whether in 

1 88 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

prosperity or in adversity. At least let it now show 
some vestiges of the ancient mark : otherwise it will 
never be received as the true Church, nor as daughter 
of that ancient mother. If it would boast further, it 
must have silence imposed upon it with these holy 
words : * If you are the children of Abraham, do the 
works of Ahraham. The true Church of believers is 
to be ever accompanied by miracles; there is no 
Church of our age which can show them save ours; 
therefore ours alone is the true Church. 



Prophecy is a very great miracle, which consists in 
the certain knowledge which the human understanding 
has of things, without any experience or any natural 
reasoning, by supernatural inspiration; and therefore 
all that I have said of miracles in general ought to be 
predicated of this. The prophet Joel foretold (ii.) that 
in the last days, that is, in the time of the Gospel 
Church, as S. Peter interprets (Acts ii.), Our Lord 
would pour out his holy Spirit upon his servants, 
and that they should prophesy ; as Our Lord had said : 
These signs shall follow them that believe. Prophecy 

* John viii. 39. 

ART. III. c. VIII,] The Rule of Faith. 189 

then is to be ever in the Church, where the servants of 
God are, and where he ever pours out his Holy Spirit. 

The Angel says in the Apocalypse (xix. 10) that 
the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy : now 
this testimony of the assurance of Our Lord is not 
only given for unbelievers, but principally for believers, 
St. Paul says (i Cor. xiv. 22); how then do you say 
that Our Lord having given it once to the Church has 
taken it away afterwards ? The chief reason for which 
it was granted remaining still, the concession therefore 
also remains. Add, as I said of miracles, that at all 
times the Church has had prophets ; we cannot there- 
fore say that this is not one of her qualities and pro- 
perties, and a good portion of her dowry. 

Jesus Christ, ascending on high^ led captivity captivey 
he gave gifts to men . . . And some indeed he gave to 
he apostles, and some prophets, and others evangelists, and 
others pastors and teachers (Eph. iv.) : the apostolic, 
evangelic, pastoral and teaching spirit is always in the 
Church, aud why shall the spirit of prophecy also not 
be left in her ? It is a perfume of the garments of 
this Spouse. 

There have been scarcely any saints in the Church 
who have not prophesied. I will only name these 
more recent ones : S. Bernard, S. Francis, S. Dominic, 
S. Anthony of Padua, S. Bridget, S. Catherine of 
Siena, who were most sound Catholics. The saints 
of whom I spoke above are of the number, and in our 
age Caspar Berz^e and Francis Xavier. You would 
find no one of the older generation who did not repeat 
with full belief some prophecy of Jean Bourg ; many 
of them had seen and heard him : The testimony of 
Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. 

igo The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

And now bring forward some one of yours who has 
prophesied in your church. We know that the sybils 
were in some sort the prophetesses of the Gentiles, 
and almost all the Ancients speak of them. Balaam 
also prophesied, but it was for the true Church, and 
hence their prophecies did not give credit to the 
church in which they were made, but to the Church 
for whom they were made : — though I deny not that 
there was among the Gentiles a true Church, consist- 
ing of a few persons, maintaining by divine grace faith 
in a true God and the observance of the natural com- 
mandents. Witness Job, in the Old Testament, and 
the good Cornelius with seven other soldiers fearing 
God, in the New. Now where are your prophets ? 
And if you have none be sure that you are not of that 
body for the edification of which the Son of God has 
left [them], according to the word of S. Paul (Eph. iv.). 
The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Calvin 
has tried, apparently, to prophesy in the preface to his 
Catechism of Geneva ; but his prediction is so favour- 
able to the Catholic Church that when we get its 
fulfilment we will be content to consider him as some- 
thing of a prophet. 



Heee are the sublimer instructions of Our Lord and 
the Apostles. A rich young man was protesting that 

ART. III. c. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 191 

he had observed the commandments of God from his 
tender youth. Our Lord, who sees everything, looking 
upon him loved him, a sign that he vt^as such as he had 
said he was, and still he gave him this counsel (Matt. 
xix. Mark, x.) : If thou woiddst he perfect, go sell all 
that thou hast, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, 
and come, follow me. S. Peter invites us by his ex- 
ample and that of his companions (Matt, xix.) : Behold 
we have left all things and have followed thee. Our 
Lord returns this solemn promise : You who have 
followed me . . . shall sit upo7i twelve seats, judging the 
twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that shall have 
left house, or hrethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or 
wife, or children^ or lands for my name's sake, shall 
receive an hundred-fold, and shall possess life everlasting. 
You see the words, now behold the example : The Son 
of man hath not where to lay his head (Luke ix. 5 8) : 
he was entirely poor to make us rich; he lived on 
alms, says S. Luke — certain women ministered to him 
of their suhstance (viii. 3). In two Psalms * which 
properly regard his person, as S. Peter and S. Paul 
interpret, he is called a beggar. When he sent his 
Apostles to preach he taught them that they should 
carry nothing on their journey save a staff only, that 
they should take neither scrip, nor bread, nor money 
in their purse, that they should be shod with sandals 
and not be furnished with two coats. I know that 
these instructions are not absolute commands, though 
the last was commanded for a time ; nor do I mean 
to say that they were more than most wholesome 
counsels and advice. 

* Namely, Psalms cviii. and xxxix. ; the one referred to by S. Peter 
in Acts i., the other by S. Paul in Heb. x. [Tr.] 

192 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

Here are others similar on another subject (Matt, 
xix.) : There are eunuchs who roere horn so from their 
mother's womb : and there are eunuchs who have made 
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He 
that can receive it, let him receive it. 

It is precisely that which had been foretold by 
Isaias (Ivi.) : Let not the eunuch say : hehold I am 
a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs: 
They that shall keep my Sabbaths, and shall choose the 
things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant y 
I will give them in my house and within my walls a 
'place and a name better than sons and daughters: I will 
give them an everlasting name which shall never perish. 
Who sees not here that the Gospel exactly comes to fit 
in with prophecy ? And in the Apocalypse xiv. those 
who sang a new canticle which no other than they 
could utter were those who are not defiled with women^ 
for they are virgins: these follow the Lamb whithersoever 
he goeth. To this refer the exhortations of S. Paul 
( I Cor. vii.) : It is good for a man not to touch a 
woman ; . . . now, / say to the unmarried and to the 
loidows : it is good for them if they so continue^ even as I. 
. . . Concerning virgins I have no commandment ^ hit I give 
counsel, as having received mercy of the Lord to be faith- 
ful. And here is the reason : He that is without a 
wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, 
how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is 
solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please 
his wife, and he is divided. And the unmarried wo7nan 
and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord that 
she may be holy both in body and in spirit ; but she 
that is married thinketh on the things of the world^ how 
she may please her husband. And this I speak for your 

ART. III. 0. IX.] The Rtile of Faith, 193 

frojit : not to cast a snare upon you, hut for that which 
is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon 
the Lord without impediment . . . He that giveth his 
virgin in marriage doth well, and he that giveth her not 
doth better. Then speaking of the widow : Let her 
marry to whom she will, only in the Lord. But more 
blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my 
counsel ; a,nd L think that L also have the Spirit of God. 
Behold the instructions of Our Lord and his Apostles, 
having the authority of the example of Oar Lord, of 
Our Lady, of S. John Baptist, of S. Paul, S. John, S. 
James, who have all lived in virginity ; and in the 
Old Testament, Elias and Eliseus, as the Ancients have 
pointed out. 

Lastly, the most humble obedience of Our Lord, 
which is so particularly signified in the Evange- 
lists, not only to his Father, to which he was obliged, 
but to S. Joseph, to his Mother, to Csesar (to whom 
he paid tribute), and to all creatures in his Passion : — 
for the love of us. He humbled himself, becoming obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil. ii. 8) : — the 
humility which he shows in having come to teach us, 
when he said (Matt, xx., Luke xxii.) : The Son of man 
is not come to be ministered unto but to minister. . . . L 
am amongst you as he that serveth — are not these per- 
petual repetitions and expositions of that most sweet 
lesson (Matt, xi.) : Learn of me, because L am meek and 
hiLmble of heart, and that other (Luke ix.) : Lf any man 
will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his 
cross daily and follow me ? He who keeps the com- 
mandments denies himself sufficiently for salvation ; to 
humble oneself in order to be exalted is quite enough : 
but still there remains another obedience, humility and 


1 94 The Catholic Controversy, [part n. 

self-abnegnation, to which the examples and instruc- 
tions of Our Lord invite us. He would have us learn 
humility from him, and he humbles himself, not only 
to those whose inferior he was, in so far as he was 
wearing the form of a servant, but also to his actual 
inferiors. He desires then, that as he abased himself, 
never indeed against his duty but beyond duty, we 
also should voluntarily obey all creatures for love of 
him : he would have us renounce ourselves, after his 
example, but he has renounced his own will so deci- 
sively that he has submitted to the cross itself, and 
has served his disciples and servants — witness he who 
finding it extraordinary said (John xiii.) : Thou shalt 
not wash my feet for ever. What remains then save 
that we should recognise in his words a sweet invita- 
tion to a voluntary submission and obedience towards 
those to whom otherwise we have no obligation, not 
resting, however lightly, on our own will and judg- 
ment, according to the advice of the Wise Man 
(Prov. iii.), but making ourselves subjects and enslaved 
to God, and to men for the love of the same God. So 
the Eechabites are magnificently praised in Jeremias 
xxxv., because they obeyed their father Jonadab in 
things very hard and extraordinary, in which he had 
no authority to oblige them, such as were not to drink 
wine, neither they nor any of theirs, not to sow, not to 
plant, not to have vineyards, not to build. Fathers 
certainly may not so tightly fasten the hands of their 
posterity, unless they voluntarily consent thereto. The 
Eechabites, however, are praised and blessed by God 
in approval of this voluntary obedience, by which they 
had renounced themselves with an extraordinary and 
more perfect renunciation. 

ART. III. 0. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 195 

Well now, let us return to our road. vSuch signal 
examples and instructions as these, in poverty, chastity, 
and abnegation of self, — to whom have they been left ? 
To the Church. But why ? Our Lord tells us : He 
ivho can receive, let him receive. And who can receive 
them ? He who has the gift of God ; and no one has 
the gift of God but he who asks for it ; — but. Iwiv shall 
they call on him in whom they have not believed. . . . 
How shall they believe . . . without a preacher ! And 
how can they yreach unless they be sent (Eoni. x.) ? 
Now, there is no mission outside the Church, there- 
fore the he who can receive let him receive, is addressed 
immediately only to the Church, or for those who are 
in the Church, since outside the Church it cannot be 
put in practice. S. Paul shows it more clearly : 1 
speak this, he says, for your profit, not to make snares 
and nets for you, but to persuade you to that which is 
decent, and which may give you power and facility to 
attend itpon the Lord, and to honour him without 
impediment. And, in fact, the Scriptures and the 
examples that are therein are only for our utility and 
instruction ; the Church then ought to use, and put 
into practice, these most holy counsels of her Spouse : 
otherwise they would have been vainly and uselessly 
left, and proposed to her : indeed she has well known 
how to take them for herself, and to profit by them : — 
and see how. 

Our Lord had no sooner ascended into heaven than 
every one amongst the first Christians sold his goods 
and brought the price to the feet of the Apostles. 
And S. Peter, putting in practice the first rule, said: 
Gold and silver have I none (Acts iii.) S. Philip had 
four daughters, virgins, whom Eusebius testifies to 

196 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

have always remained such. S. Paul kept virginity 
or celibacy ; so did S. John and S. James ; and when 
S. Paul (i Tim. v.) reproves, as having damnation, 
certain young widows who, afUr they have grown 
luanton in Christ will marry, having damnation because 
they have left their first faith, — the fourth Council of 
Carthage (at which S. Augustine assisted) S. Epiphanius, 
S. Jerome, with all the rest of antiquity, understand 
it of widows who, being vowed to God and to the 
observance of chastity, broke their vows, entering into 
the ties of marriage against the faith which previously 
they had given to the heavenly Spouse. From that 
time, then, the counsel of [being] eunuchs, and the other 
which S. Paul gives, were practised in the Church. 

Eusebius of Csesarea records that the Apostles insti- 
tuted two lives ; the one according to commandment, 
the other according to counsel. And that so it was, 
evidently appears ; for, on the model of the perfection 
of life followed and counselled by the Apostles, a 
countless number of Christians have so closely formed 
theirs, that history is full of it. Who does not know 
how admirable are the accounts given by Philo the 
Jew of the life of the first Christians at Alexandria, 
in the book entitled Of the Life of the Beseechers,* 
wherein he treats of S. Mark and his disciples, as 
Eusebius, Nicephorus, S. Jerome, bear witness ; and 
amongst the rest, Epiphanius,t who assures us that 
Philo, when writing of the Jessenes, was speaking of 
the Christians under this name, who for some time 
after the Ascension of Our Lord, whilst S. Mark was 
preaching in Egypt, were so called, either on account 

* De vitd Contemplativa sive supplicium virtutibus. 
t Hser. xxix. cc. 4, 5. 

ART. III. c. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 197 

of the name of Jesse, from whose race Our Lord 
sprang, or on account of the name of Jesus, their 
Master's name, which they ever had in their mouth. 
Now he who will look at the books of Philo, will see 
in these Jessenes or Therapeuts (healers or servers) a 
most perfect renunciation of oneself, of one's flesh, of 
one's goods. 

S. Martial, a disciple of Our Lord, in an Epistle 
which he wrote to the Tolosians, relates that at his 
preaching the blessed Valeria, wife of an earthly king, 
had vowed the virginity of her body and of her spirit 
to the celestial King. S. Denis, in his Ecclesiastical 
Hierarchy, says that the Apostles, his masters, called 
the religious of his time Therapeuts, that is, servers or 
adorers, on account of the special service and worship 
they paid to God, or monks,* on account of the union 
with God, in which they made progress. Behold the 
perfection of the Evangelic life excellently practised in 
this first time of the Apostles and their disciples, who, 
having traced this path thus straight to heaven, and 
ascended by it, have been followed, one after another, 
by many excellent Christians. S. Cyprian observed 
continency, and gave all his goods to the poor, as 
Pontius the Deacon records. The same did S. Paul, 
the first Hermit, S. Anthony and S. Hilarion, witness 
S. Athanasius and S. Jerome. S. Paulinus, Bishop of 
Nola — S. Ambrose is our authority — of an ilhistrious 
family in Guienne, gave all his goods to the poor, and, 
as if discharged from a weighty burden, said farewell 
to his father and his family, to serve his God more 
devotedly. By his example it was that S. Martin 
quitted all, and excited others to the same perfection. 

* Moj'cixoc from ix6vos, one or single. [Tr.] 

198 The Catholic Controversy. [part h 

George, Patriarch of Alexandria, relates that St. Chry- 
sostom gave up all and became a monk. Politian, an 
African gentleman, returning from the Emperor's court, 
related to S. Augustin, that in Egypt there were a 
great number of monasteries and religious, who mani- 
fested a great sweetness and simplicity in their 
manners, and that there was a monastery at Milan, 
outside the town, furnished with a good number of 
religious, living in great union and brotherhood, to 
whom S. Ambrose, bishop of the place, was as Abbot. 
He told them also that near the town of Treves, there 
was a monastery of good religious, in which two cour- 
tiers of the Emperor had become monks ; and that 
two young ladies who were betrothed to these two 
courtiers, having heard the resolution of their spouses, 
similarly vowed their virginity to God, and retired 
from the world to live in religion, poverty, and chastity. 
S. Augustin himself tells all this. Possidius relates 
the same, and says that he had instituted a monastery ; 
which S. Augustine himself relates in one of his 
Epistles. These great Fathers have been followed by 
S. Gregory, Damascene, Bruno, Eomuald, Bernard, 
Dominic, Francis, Louis, Anthony, Vincent, Thomas, 
Bona venture, who having all renounced and said an 
eternal adieu to the world and its pomps, have presented 
themselves as a perfect holocaust to the living God. 

Now let us conclude. These consequences seem to 
me inevitable. Our Lord has had these instructions 
and counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience laid 
down in his Scriptures : he has practised them, and 
has had them practised in his early Church : all the 
Scripture and all the life of Our Lord were but an 
instruction for the Church which was to make profit 

ART. III. c. X.] The Rule of Faith. 199 

by them, and it was then to be one of the institutions 
of the Church, this chastity, poverty, obedience or 
self-renunciation. Moreover, the Church has always 
put in practice these things at all times and in every 
season ; this then is one of her properties : and what 
would be the use of so many exhortations if they 
were not to be put in practice ? The true Church 
therefore ought to shine in the perfection of the 
Christian life ; not so that everybody in the Church 
is bound to follow it ; it is enough that it be found 
in some notable members and parts, in order that 
nothing may be written or counselled in vain, and 
that the Church may make use of all the parts of 
Holy Scripture. 



The Church which is now, following the voice of her 
Pastor and Saviour, and the track beaten by her 
ancestors, praises, approves, and greatly esteems the 
resolution of those who give themselves up to the 
practice of the Evangelical counsels, of whom she has 
a very great number. I have no doubt that if you 
had frequented the assemblies of the Chartreux, 
Camaldolese, Celestines, Minims, Capuchins, Jesuits, 
Theatines and numberless others, amongst whom 

200 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

religious discipline flourishes, you would be uncertain 
whether you should call them earthly angels or 
heavenly men, and that you would not know which 
to admire the more, whether in such blooming youth 
so perfect a chastity, or in such great knowledge so 
profound a humility, or in so much diversity so close 
a fraternity : and all, like heavenly bees, work in and 
compose, with the rest of Christianity, the honey of 
the Gospel, these by preachings, these by writings, 
these by meditations and prayers, these by teaching 
and disputations, these by the care of the sick, these 
by the administration of the Sacraments, under the 
authority of the pastors. Who should ever detract 
from the glory of so many religious of all orders, and 
of so many secular priests, who, leaving their country, 
or, to say it better, their own world, have exposed 
themselves to the mercy of wind and tide, to get to the 
nations of the New World, in order to lead them to 
the true faith, and to enlighten them with the light 
of the Gospel ; who, without other equipment than 
a lively confidence in the Providence of God, without 
other expectation than of labours, miseries and martyr- 
dom, without other aim than the honour of God and 
the salvation of souls, here hastened amongst the 
Cannibals, Canarians, Negroes, Brazilians, Malays, 
Japanese, and other foreign nations, and made them- 
selves prisoners there, banishing themselves from their 
own earthly country in order that these poor people 
might not be banished from the heavenly Paradise ? 
I know that some Ministers have been thither, but 
they went having their means of support from men, 
and when these failed they returned and did no more, 
because an ape is always an ape, but ours remained 

ART. HI. 0. X.] The Rule of Faith. 201 

there, in perpetual continency to fertilise the Church 
with these new plants, in extreme poverty to enrich 
these people with the Gospel, and died in bondage to 
place that world in Christian liberty. 

But if, instead of making your profit of these 
examples, and refreshing your minds with the sweet- 
ness of so holy a perfume, you turn your eyes towards 
certain places where monastic discipline is altogether 
ruined, and where there remains nothing sound but 
the habit ; — you will force me to say that you are 
looking for the sewers and dung heaps, not the 
gardens and orchards. All good Catholics regret the 
ill-behaviour of these people, and blame the negligence 
of the pastors and the uncontrollable ambition of 
certain persons who, being determined to have power 
and authority, hinder legitimate elections, and the 
order of discipline, in order to make the temporal 
goods of the Church their own. What can we do ? 
The master has sown good seed, but the enemy has 
oversown cockle. The Church, at the Council of 
Trent, had looked to the good ordering of these things, 
but its ordinances are despised by those who ought to 
put them into execution ; and so far are Catholic 
doctors from consenting to this evil that they consider 
it a great sin to enter into such disorderly monasteries 
as these. Judas prevented not the honour of the 
Apostolic order, nor Lucifer of the angelic, nor 
Nicholas of the diaconate ; and in the same way 
these abominable men ou^jht not to tarnish the rioht- 
eousness of so many devout monasteries, which the 
Catholic Church has preserved amidst all the dissolu- 
tion of this age of iron, in order that not one word of her 
Spouse should be in vain or fail to be put in practice. 

202 The Catholic Controversy, [pabtil 

On tbe contrary, gentlemen, your pretended church 
despises and contradicts all this as much as she can. 
Calvin in the 4th Book of his InstiUUions aims only 
at the abolition of the observance of the Evangelical 
counsels, and you cannot show me any effort or good 
will amongst your party, in which every one down to 
the ministers marries, every one labours to gather 
together riches, nobody acknowledges any other 
superior than force makes him submit to — an 
evident sign that this pretended church is not the 
one for which Our Lord has preached and draw 
the picture of so many excellent examples. For 
if everybody marries, what will become of the 
advice of S. Paul ( i Cor. vii.) : It is good for a man 
not to touch a woman ? If everybody runs after 
money and possessions, to whom will that word of 
Our Lord (Matt, vi.) be addressed : Lay not up for 
yourselves treasures on earth, or that other (lb. xix) : 
Go, sell all, give to the poor? If every one will 
govern in his turn, where shall be found the practice 
of that most solemn senteuce (Luke ix) : He rvho will 
come after me let him deny himself? If then your 
Church puts itself in comparison with ours, ours will 
be the true Spouse, who puts in practice all the words 
of her Beloved, and leaves not one talent of the Scrip- 
ture idle ; yours will be false, who hears not the voice 
of the Beloved, yea, despises it. For it is not reason- 
able that to keep yours in credit we should make 
vain the least syllable of the Scriptures , which being 
addressed only to the true Church, would be vain and 
useless if in the true Church all these parts are not 
made use of. 

ART, III. c. XI.] The Riile of Faith. 20 




That great Father, Vincent of Lerins, in his most use- 
ful Memorial, says that he must before all things have 
a great care to believe " that which has been believed 
by all [always and everywhere] " . . .* such as the 
jugglers and tinkers ; for the rest of the world call us 
Catholic ; and if we add Eonian, it is only to inform 
people of the See of that Bishop who is general and 
visible Pastor of the Church. And already in the 
time of S. Ambrose to be Eoman in communion was 
the same thino- as to be Catholic. 

But as for your church, it is called everywhere 
Huguenot, Calvinist, Heretical, Pretended, Protestant, 
New, or Sacramentarian. Your church was not before 
these names, and these names were not before your 
church, because they are proper to it. Nobody calls 
you Catholics, you scarcely dare to do so yourselves. 
I am well aware that amongst you your churches call 
themselves Eeformed, but just as much right to that 
name have the Lutherans, and the Ubiquitarians, Ana- 
baptists, Trinitarians, and other offshoots of Luther, 
and they will never yield it to you. The name of 
religion is common to the Church of the Jews and of 
the Christians, in the Old Law and in the New ; the 
name of Catholic is proper to the Church of Our Lord ; 

* There is an lixatxiB in the MS, here. In the earlier part of the 
broken sentence the saint has apparently been saying that Catholics 
are called Romans by the lower orders. [Tr,] 

204 The Catholic Controversy. [pakth. 

the name of Eeformed is a blasphemy against Our Lord, 
who has so perfectly formed and sanctified his Church 
iu his blood, that it must never take other form than 
of his all lovely Spouse, of pillar and ground of truth. 
One may reform the nations in particular, but not the 
Church or religion. She was rightly formed, change 
of formation is called heresy or irreligion. The tint 
of Our Saviour's blood is too fair and too bright to re- 
quire new colours. 

Your church, then, calling itself Eeformed, gives up 
its part in the form which the Saviour had established. 
But I cannot refrain from telling you what Beza, 
Luther, and Peter Martyr think on this. Peter 
Martyr calls you Lutherans, and says you are brothers 
to them ; you are then Lutherans ; Luther calls you 
" fanatics " and Sacramentarians ; Beza calls the 
Lutherans Consubstantiators and Chymists, and yet he 
puts them in the number of Eeformed churches. See 
then the new names which the reformers acknowledge 
for one another. Your church, therefore, not having 
even the name of Catholic, you cannot with a good 
conscience say the Apostles' Creed; if you do, you 
judge yourselves, who, confessing the Church Catholic 
and universal, obstinately keep to your own, which 
most certainly is not such. If S. Augustine were 
living now, he would remain in our Church, which 
from immemorial time is in possession of the name of 

AET. III. 0. XII,] The Rule of Faith, 205 



The Church to be Catholic must be universal in 
time, and to be universal in time it must be ancient ; 
antiquity then is a property of the Church. And in 
relation to heresies it must be more ancient than any 
of them, and must precede all, because, as Tertullian 
excellently says : * " Error is a corruption of truth, 
truth then must precede." The good seed is sown 
first, the enemy who oversows cockle comes afterwards. 
Moses was before Abiron, Dathan, and Core ; the 
Angels were before the devils ; Lucifer stood in the 
light before he fell into the eternal darkness; the pri- 
vation must follow the form. S. John says of heretics 
( I Ep. ii. 1 9) : They went out from u^ ; they were 
then within before they went out; the going out is 
heresy, the being within is fidelity ; the Church then 
precedes heresy. So the coat of Our Lord was whole 
before it was divided. And although Ismael was 
before Isaac, that does not signify that error was before 
truth, but that the true shadow, Judaism, was before 
the body, Christianity, as S. Paul says (Gal. iv.) 

Tell us now, I pray you, — quote the time and the 
place when and where our Church first appeared after the 
Gospel ? — the author and doctor who called it together. 
I will use the very words of a doctor and martyr of 
our age,t and they are worthy of close attention. 

* De Praesc. xxix. + Campion, Decern Rationed, 7. 

2o6 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

"You own to us, and would not dare to do other- 
wise, that for a time the Eoman Church was holy, 
Catholic, Apostolic. Certainly then, when it deserved 
those holy praises of the Apostle (Rom. i. xv. xvi.) : 
Your faith is spoken of in the whole world. . . . I mahe 
a commemoration of you always. . . . I know that ivhen 
I come to you I shall come in the abundance of the Messing 
of the gospel of Christ. . . . All the Churches of Christ 
salute you. . . . For your obedience is published in 
every place ; then, when S. Paul, in prison free, sowed 
the Gospel ; when S. Peter was governing the Church 
assembled in Babylon ; when Clement, so highly 
praised by the Apostle, was stationed at the rudder; 
when the profane Caesars, like Nero, Domitian, Trajan, 
Antoninus, were massacring the Bishops of Rome ; yea 
and then also when Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, and 
Innocent were holding the Apostolic helm : this on 
the testimony of Calvin himself, for he freely con- 
fesses that at that time they had not yet strayed from 
the Evangelic doctrine. Well then, when was it that 
Rome lost this widely renowned faith ? When did it 
cease to be what it had been ? — at what time ? — under 
what bishop ? — by what means ? — by what force ? — 
by what steps did the strange religion take possession 
of the City and of the wliole world ? — what protest, 
what troubles, what lamentations did it evoke ? How ! 
— was everybody asleep throughout the whole world, 
while Rome, Rome I say, was forging new Sacraments, 
new Sacrifices, and new doctrines ? Is there not to 
be found one single historian, either Greek or Latin, 
friend or stranger, to publish or leave behind some 
traces of his commentaries and memoirs on so great a 
matter ? " 

ART. III. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith. 207 

And, in good truth, it would be a strange hap if 
historians, who have been so curious to note the most 
trifling changes in cities and peoples had forgotten 
the most noteworthy of all those which can occur, that 
is, the change of religion in the most important city 
and province of the world, which are Eome and Italy. 

I ask you, gentlemen, whether you know when our 
Church began the pretended error. Tell us frankly ; 
for it is certain that, as S. Jerome says,^ "to have 
reduced heresy to its origin is to have refuted it." 
Let us trace back the course of history up to the foot 
of the cross ; let us look on this side and on that, we 
shall never see that this Catholic Church has at any 
time changed its aspect — it is ever itself, in doctrine 
and in Sacraments. 

We have no need against you, on this important 
point, of other witnesses than the eyes of our fathers 
and grandfatliers to say when your pretended Church 
began. In the year 1 5 1 7 Luther commenced his 
Tragedy: in '34 and '35 they composed an act 
in these parts ; Zwingle and Calvin were the chief 
players in it. Would you have me detail by list with 
what fortune and deeds, by what force and violence, 
this reformation gained possession of Berne, Geneva, 
Lausanne, and other towns — what troubles and woes 
it brought forth ? You will not find pleasure in this 
account ; we see it, we feel it. In a word, your 
Church is not yet eighty years old ; its author is 
Calvin ; its result the misery of our age. Or if you 
would make it older, tell us where it was before that 
time. Beware of saying that it existed but was in- 
visible ; — for if it were not seen who can say that it 

* Adv. Lucif. 28, 

2o8 The Catholic Controversy. [partil 

existed ? Besides, Luther contradicts you, who con- 
fesses that iu the beginning he was quite alone. 

Now, if Tertullian already in his time bears witness 
that Catholics refuted the errors of heretics by their 
posteriority and novelty, when the Church was only 
in her youth — " We are wont," says he,* " to pre- 
scribe against heretics, for brevity's sake, on the argu- 
ment of posteriority " — how much more right have 
we now ? And if one of the Churches must be the 
true, this title falls to ours which is most ancient ; 
and to your novelty the infamous name of heresy. 



Although the Church might be ancient, yet it would 
not be universal in time if it had failed at any period. 
The heresy of the Nicolaites is ancient but not uni- 
versal, for it only lasted a very little while. And as 
a whirlwind which seems ready to displace the sea 
then suddenly is lost in itself, or as a mushroom, 
which is born of some noxious vapour in a night, 
appears and in a day is gone, — so every heresy, 
ancient as it may be, has at last disappeared, but the 
Church endures perpetually.t 

* Adv. Hermog., c. i. 

f Here occurs a passage on the perpetuity of the Church, which has 
already appeared, in somewhat fuller form, in Part I. chaps, ix., x. 
The reader is referred to these chapters and to the Preface. fTr.] 

ART. III. c. XIII.] The Rule of Faith, 209 

I will say to you, as I have said above : show me 
a decade of years since Our Lord ascended into heaven 
in which decade our Church has not existed. The 
reason why you find yourselves unable to say when 
our Church began is that it has always existed. And 
if you would care to make yourselves honestly clear 
about this, Sanders in his Visible Monarchy, and 
Gilbert Genebrard in his Chronology would furnish 
you light enough, and particularly the learned Csesar 
Baronius in his Annals. But if you are not willing 
all at once to abandon the books of your masters, and 
have not your eyes blinded with too excessive a pas- 
sion, you will, if you look closely into the Centuries 
of Magdebourg, see everywhere nothing but the actions 
of Catholics ; for, says very well a learned man of our 
age, if they had not collected these there they would 
have left one thousand five hundred years without his- 
tory. I will say something on this point afterwards. 

Now, as to your Church, — let us suppose its lie to 
be truth, that it was in the time of the Apostles ; it 
will not on that account be the Catholic Church, for 
the Catholic Church must be universal in time: she 
must then always continue. But, tell me, where was 
your Church a hundred, two hundred, three hundred 
years ago ? Point it out you cannot, for it did not 
exist : therefore it is not the true Church. It existed, 
some one will perhaps say to me, but unknown. 
Goodness of God! who cannot say the same? — Adamite, 
Anabaptist, everybody will take up this argument. I 
have already shown that the Church militant is not 
invisible ; I have shown that she is universal in time ; 
I will show you that she cannot be unknown. 


2 1 o The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 



The universality of the Church does not require that 
all provinces or missions receive the Gospel at once, it 
is enough that they do so one after another ; in such 
sort, however, that the Church is always seen, and is 
always known as that which has existed throughout 
the whole world or the greater part thereof ; so that 
one may be able to say : Come let tos go up into the 
mountain of the Lord (Is. ii. 3). For the Church shall 
be as the sun, says the Psalm, and the sun is not 
always shining equally in all countries : enough if by 
the end of the year there is no one who can hide from 
its heat (Ps. xviii.) So will it suffice that by the end 
of the world Our Lord's prediction be fulfilled, that it 
behoves that penance and remission of sins should he 
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at 
Jerusalem (Luke ult.). 

Now the Church in the time of the Apostles every- 
where spread forth its branches, covered with the fruits 
of the Gospel, as S. Paul testifies (Eom. i.) S. Irenseus 
says the same of his time,t speaking of the Eoman or 
papal Church, to which he will have all the rest of the 
Church subject on account of its superior authority. 

Prosper speaks of our Church, not of yours, when 

* This passage on the universality of the Church is tlie same aa 
Part I. c. xi. ; see previous note. [Tr.] 
+ iii. 3. 

ART. III. c. XIV.] The Rule of Faith. 2 1 1 

he says : * " In the pastoral honour, Eome, see of S. 
Peter, is head of the universe, which she has not 
reduced to her dominion by war and arms, but has 
acquired by religion." You see clearly that he speaks 
of the Church, that he acknowledged the Pope of 
Eome as its head. In the time of S. Gregory there 
were Catholics everywhere, as may be seen by the 
Epistles which he wrote to bishops of almost all 
nations. In the time of Gratian, Valentinian and 
Justinian, there were everywhere Roman Catholics, as 
may be seen by their laws. S. Bernard says the same 
of his time ; and you know well that it was so in the 
time of Godfrey de Bouillon. Since then, the same 
Church has come to our age, ever Pioman and papal. 
So that even if our Church now were much less than 
it is, it would not cease to be most Catholic, because 
it is the same Roman Church which has been, and 
which has possessed all the provinces of the nations, 
and peoples without number : — but, it is still now 
extended over the whole world ; in Transylvania, 
Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, and throughout all Ger- 
many ; in France, in Italy, in Sclavonia, in Candia, in 
Spain, Portugal, Sicily, j\Ialta, Corsica, in Greece, in 
Armenia, in Syria, and everywhere. 

Shall I add to the list the Eastern and Western 
Indies ? He who would have a compendium of these 
must attend a general Chapter or assembly of the 
Religious of S. Francis, called Observantines. He 
would see Religious arrive from every quarter of the 
world. Old and New, under the obedience of a simple, 
lowly, insigniticant man : so that these alone would 
seem enough for the Church to fulfil that part of the 

* De Jngratis. 40. 

212 The Catholic Controversy, [part n. 

prophecy of Malachy (i.) : In every 'place there is sacri- 
fice . . . to my name. 

On the contrary, gentlemen, the pretenders pass not 
the Alps on our side, nor the Pyrenees on the side of 
Spain ; Greece knows you not ; the other three parts 
of the world do not know who you are, and have 
never heard of Christians without sacrifice, without 
altar, without head, without cross, as you are ; in 
Germany your comrades the Lutherans, Brentians, 
Anabaptists, Trinitarians, eat into your portion ; in 
England the Puritans, in France the Libertines ; — how 
then can you be so obstinate, and continue thus apart 
from the rest of the world, as did the Luciferians and 
Donatists ? I will say to you, as S. Augustine said 
to one of your fellows : * "Be good enough, I beseech 
you, to enlighten us on this point; — how it can be 
that Our Lord has lost his Church throughout the 
world, and has began to have none save in you alone." 
Surely you reduce Our Lord to too great a poverty, 
says S. Jerome.t But if you say your church was 
already Catholic, in the time of the Apostle, show us 
that it existed at that time, for all the sects will say 
the same. How will you graft this little scion of 
pretended religion on that holy and ancient stock ? 
Make your church touch by a perpetual continuation 
the primitive Church, for if they touch not, how can 
the one draw sap from the other. But this you will 
never do, unless you submit to the obedience of the 
Catholic [Church], you will never be, I say, with those 
who shall sing (Apoc. v. 9) : Thou hast redeemed us in 
thy Hood, from every tribe and tongue, and people and 
nation^ and hast made us a kingdom to our God. 
* Contra Don. + Contra Lucif. 

ART. III. 0. XV.] The Rule of Faith. 213 



Perhaps you will say, at last, that after a time your 
church will spread its wings, and will become Catholic 
by process of time ; but this is talking in the air. 
For if an Augustine, a Chrysostom, an Ambrose, a 
Cyprian, a Gregory, and that great multitude of excel- 
lent pastors, have not been able to manage well enough 
to prevent the Church from tumbling over soon after 
their time, how [shall] Calvin, Luther, and the rest 
[do so] ? What likelihood is there that it should grow 
stronger now, under the charge of your ministers, who 
neither in sanctity nor in doctrine are comparable with 
those ? If the Church in its spring, summer, and 
autumn has not been fruitful, how would you have one 
gather fruits from it in winter ? If in its youth it 
has made no progress, how far would you have it run 
in its old age ? 

But I say further ; your church is not only not 
Catholic, but never has been, not having the power nor 
the faculty of producing children, but only of stealing 
the offspring of others, as the partridge does. And 
yet it is certainly one of the properties of the Church 
to be fertile ; it is for that, amongst other reasons, that 
she is called Dove. And if her Spouse, when he would 
bless a man, makes his wife fruitful, like a fruitful 
vine on the sides of his house (Ps. cxxvii.), and makes the 
harren woman to dwell in a house, the joyful mother of 

2 1 4 The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 

many cliildrcii (Ps, cxii.), ought he not himself to have 
a bride who should be fruitful, yea, according to the 
holy Word (Is. liv.), this desolate one should have 
many children, this new Jerusalem should be most 
populous, and have a great generation. The Gentiles 
shall tvalk in thy light, says the Prophet (lb. Ix.), 
and Icings in the glory of thy rising. Lift up thy eyes 
round about and see ; all these are gathered together, they 
arc come to thee : thy sons shall come from afar, and thy 
daughters shall rise tip at thy side : and (liii.) : because 
his soul hath laboured . . . therefore will I distribute to 
him very many. Now this fertility and these great 
nations of the Church come principally by preaching, 
as S. Paul says ( i Cor. iv. 15): In the Gospel I have 
begotten you. The preacliing, then, of the Church ought 
to be as a flame : Thy word is fiery, Lord (Ps. 
cxviii. 140). And what is more active, lively, pene- 
trating, and more quick to alter and give its form to 
other matters than fire ? 

Such was the preaching of S. Augustine in England, 
of S. Boniface in Germany, of S. Patrick in Ireland, 
of Willibrord in Frisia, of Cyril in Bohemia, of Adalbert 
in Poland, of Stephen in Hungary, of S. Vincent Ferrer 
and John Capistran ; such the preaching of * ... . 
Francis Xavier, and a thousand others, who have over- 
turned idolatry by holy preaching ; and all were Eoman 

On the contrary, your ministers have not yet con- 
verted any province from paganism, nor any country. 
To divide Christendom, to create factions there, to tear 

* There are four or five words here in the MS. which we fail to make 
out. There is some indication of the names of (S.) Louis Bertrand, 
and Anchieta, the others appear to be Henrye and Lorier. [Tr.] 

ART. III. c. XV.] The Rtile of Faith. 215 

in pieces the robe of Our Lord, is the effect of their 
preachings. Christian doctrine is as a gentle rain, 
which makes unfruitful soil to bring forth : theirs 
rather resembles hail, which beats down and destroys 
the harvests, and makes barren the most fertile lands. 
Take notice of what S. Jude says : Woe, to them who 
. . . have 'perished in the gainsaying of Gore (Core was 
a schismatic) ; these are spots in their hanquets, feasting 
together luithodt fear, feeding themselves, clouds ivithout 
water which are carried cd)out hy the loind : — they have 
the exterior of the Scriptures, but they have not the 
interior moisture of the Spirit : — nnfrnitfiil trees of the 
autumn, — which have not the leaves of the letter nor 
the fruit of the inner meaning ; twice dead, — dead to 
charity by schism, and to faith by heresy ; plucked up 
hy the 7'oo^s, unable any more to bear fruit; — raging 
waves of the sea, foaming out their oion confusion — of 
disputes, contests and violent changes ; — wandering 
stars, — which can serve as guides to no one, and have 
no firmness of faith but change about in every direction. 
What wonder then that your preaching is sterile ? 
You have but the bark without the sap, and how 
would you have it germinate ? You have only the 
sheath without the sword, the letter without the mean- 
ing; no wonder you cannot uproot idolatry. So S. 
Paul,* speaking of those who separate from the Church, 
protests that they shall advance no further. If then 
your Church can m no way style itself Catholic up to 
this present, still less can you hope it may do so after- 
wards, since its preaching is so feeble, and its preachers 
have never undertaken, as Tertullian says,t the busi- 
ness or commission " of converting heathens, but only 

* 2 Tim. iii. 9. f De Prcesc. xlii. 

2 1 6 The Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

of perverting our own." Oh what a Church, then, 
which is neither one, nor holy, nor Catholic, and, which 
is worse, can have no reasonable hope whatever that 
it will ever become so. 



[This title is at the top of a blank sheet, but the 
Saint has implicitly treated the subject in what has 
gone before. He has proved, on the one hand, that 
the Catholic Church takes her mission and her doctrine 
from the Apostles, on the other hand that the founders 
of the pretended church disclaim Apostolic mission 
and succession, reject the Sacrament of Orders, despise 
that priestly Sacrifice for which Orders are chiefly 
necessary, and not only contradict specific Apostolic 
utterances but reject the principle of Apostolic 
authority. Tr.] 

ART. IV. c. 1.] The Rtde of Faith, 217 





We will begin with the words of S. Leo : * (" Although 
the definition of the Apostolic See in matters of faith 
is certain and irrefragable), still what Our Lord had 
first decided by our ministry he irrefragably confirmed 
by the assent of the whole brotherhood ; so that he 
might show that that truly proceeded from him which, 
having been defined by the first of all the Sees, had 
been received by the judgment of the whole Christian 
world, the members in this also agreeing with their 
head. . . . And truth itself appears more clearly 
and is held more firmly when examination afterwards 
confirms what faith had first taught, (so that he would 
indeed be an impious and sacrilegious man who should 
leave anything to be decided by his own opinion after 
the sentence of so many priests.") 

One could not better trace out a true and holy 
Council than on the pattern of that which the Apostles 
held in Jerusalem. 

Now let us see ( i .) who convoked it ; and we shall 
find that it was assembled by authority itself, by the 
pastors : The Apostles and ancients came together to 
consider of this matter.\ And in truth it is the pastors 

* Ep. 63. We do uot find the parts placed in brackets. [Tr.] 
t Acts. XV. 

2i8 The Catholic Controversy. [partil 

who are charged to instruct the people and to provide 
for their salvation by resolving the doubts which arise 
touching Christian doctrine. Emperors and princes 
ought to be zealous about it, but according to their 
office, which is after the manner of justice, of police, 
and of the, sword which they hear not in vain* Those 
therefore who will have that the Emperor possessed 
this authority find no foundation either in Scripture 
or in reason. For what are the principal causes why 
General Councils are assembled, save to put down and 
cast out the heretic, the schismatic, the scandalizer, 
as wolves from the sheep-fold ? — as that first Assembly 
was held in Jerusalem to resist those who belonged 
to the heresy of the Pharisees. And who has the 
charge of driving away the wolf ? And who is shep- 
herd save he to whom Our Lord said : Feed my sheep ? 
Find that a similar charge was given to Tiberius. 
He who has the authority for feeding the sheep 
has the authority for calling the shepherds together 
to learn what pasturage and what waters are whole- 
some for the flock. This is properly to assemble the 
pastors in the name of Jesus Christ,t that is, by 
the authority of Our Lord. Eor what else is it to 
assemble the estates in the name of the prince but 
to convoke them by the authority of the prince ? 
And who has received this autliority except him who 
as lieutenant has received the Keys of the Kingdom 
of Heaven ? This made the good Father, Bishop 
Lucentius, legate of the holy Apostolic See, say that 
Dioscorus had done greatly wrong in having assembled 
a council without Apostolic authority. " Having 
dared," said he, " to convoke a synod without the 

* Rom. xiii. 4. f Matt, xviii. 20. 

ART. IV. c. I.] The Rtile of Faith. 2 1 9 

authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had 
never been nor could be lawfully done : " and he said 
these words in the full assembly of the great Council 
of Chalcedon. 

Still it is necessary that if the town where the 
meeting is held be subject to the Emperor or to some 
prince, and a public collection has to be made for the 
expenses of a Council, the prince in whose terri- 
tory they meet should have permitted and authorised 
the meeting, and the collections must be authorised 
by the princes in whose States they are made. And 
when the Emperor wishes to assemble a Council [he 
may do so], provided that the Holy See, consenting 
thereto, makes the convocation legitimate. Such have 
been the convocations of some most authentic Councils, 
and such was that which Herod ordered at Jerusalem 
to know when the Christ should be born, the priests 
and scribes consenting. But to go on thence to 
attribute to princes the right to command the con- 
vocation of a Council would be as unreasonable as to 
draw an argument from his cruelty to S. John the 
Baptist, or his massacre of the infants. 

We next (2.) come to examine in this first Chris- 
tian Council which was held by the Apostles, who 
they were that were called : The Apostles and ancients, 
says the text, came together to consider of this matter. 
The Apostles and the priests — in a word. Churchmen. 
So reason required, for the old proverb ever holds 
good : — the cobbler not beyond his last ; as does the 
word recorded by S. Athanasius,* which the good 
Father Hosius wrote to the Emperor Constantius : 
" To thee God has committed the Empire, to us what 

* E'p. ad Solit. 

2 20 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

belongs to the Church." It is then for Ecclesiastics 
to be called, although princes, the Emperor, kings 
and others find a place as protectors of the Church. 

(3.) Who is to be judge ? Now we do not see 
that any one gave judgment except four of the 
Apostles, — S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Barnabas and S. James, 
in whose sentence every one acquiesced. Whilst they 
were deliberating, the elders or priests spoke, as 
appears probable from these words : " And when there 
was much disputing" which shows that the question 
was most earnestly discussed. But when it came to 
resolving and passing sentence, we do not find that 
any one speaks who is not an Apostle ; as we find 
in the ancient and canonical Councils that none but 
Bishops have subscribed and defined. Take heed, says 
S. Paul,* to yourselves and to all the flock ; but who is 
thus to take heed to themselves and to the general 
body ? — in which the Holy Ghost has placed you Bishops 
to rule the Church of God ? It belongs to the pastors 
to provide wholesome doctrine for the sheep, and tliis 
was the reason why the Fathers of the Council of 
Chalcedon, when they saw monks and laymen enter, 
cried out repeatedly : " Cast out those who are not 
members ; it is a Council of Bishops." 

(4.) If we consider who presided, we shall find 
that it was S. Peter, who first gives sentence and is 
then followed by the rest, as S. Jerome says, t And 
indeed he had the chief pastoral charge : Feed my 
sheep, — and he was the grand steward over the rest : 
To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom ; further, 
he was the confirmer of the brethren, an office which 
properly belongs to the president or superintendent 

* Acts XX. 28, t ad Aug. 

ART. IV. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 221 

From that time, therefore, the successor of S. Peter, 
the Bishop of Rome, has always presided at Councils 
by his legates. At the Council of Nice the first who 
subscribed are Hosius, Bishop, Vitus, and Modestus, 
priests, envoys of the Holy See.* And, in truth, 
how could these two priests have come to subscribe 
before the Patriarchs except because they were holding 
the place of the Supreme Patriarch ? As for S. 
Athanasius, so far from his having presided, he did 
not even sit, nor subscribe, being at that time only a 
deacon. And the great Constantine not only did not 
preside, but sat below the Bishops, and would not be 
there as pastor but as a sheep.t 

In the Council of Constantinople though he was 
not there nor any legate for him, — because he was 
treating the same matter with the Western Bishops 
at Rome which was being treated at Constantinople 
by the Easterns, who were thus able to join them 
only in spirit and deliberation, — still by letters which 
were mutually exchanged between the Fathers, Dama- 
sus, Bishop of Rome, was acknowledged as lawful head 
and president.;]; 

In the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril presided as 
legate and lieutenant of Pope Celestine. Here are 
the words of S. Prosper of Aquitaine \\ "By this 
man " (he is speaking of Pope Celestine) " the Eastern 
Churches also were purged of a double pestilence 
when he helped Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria, a 
most glorious defender of the Catholic faith, to cut off 
with the Apostolic sword the Nestorian impiety." 
Which the same Prosper says again in the Chronicle : 

* Prmf, Cone. Sard. f Theod. i. 7. Miifin. x. 2, 

t Theod. V. 8, 10. § Contra CoU. 

2 22 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

" The Nestorian impiety is opposed by the signal 
energy of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and the autho- 
rity of Pope Celestine." 

Throughout the Council of Chalcedon everything 
proclaims that the legates of the Holy See, Paschasinus 
and Lucentius, presided. One has but to read the 

Here then you have Scripture, reason, and the 
practice of the four most legitimate Councils that ever 
were, presided over by S. Peter and his successors 
when they were present. I could show the same of 
all the others which have been received in the uni- 
versal Church as legitimate. But this will quite 

(5.) There remain the approval, acceptance, and 
execution of the decrees of the Council, which were 
made, as they ought still now to be made, by all 
those who assisted. Whence it was said : Tli&n it 
'pleased the Apostles and ancients with the whole Church 
to choose men, &c. But as to the authority in virtue 
of which the decree of that Council was promulgated 
it was only that of ecclesiastics : The Apostles and 
ancients . . . to those . . . that are at Antioch and in 
Syria and Cilicia. The authority of the sheep is not 
there appealed to, but only that of the shepherds. 
There may indeed be lay persons present at the 
Council if it be expedient, but not sitting as judges 

ART. IV. 0. II.] The R^ile of Faith, 223 




We are speaking then here of a Council such as that, 
in which there is the authority of S. Peter, both in 
the beginning and in the conclusion, and of the other 
Apostles and pastors who may choose to assist, or if 
not of all at lettst of a notable part ; in which dis- 
cussion is free, that is, in which any one who chooses 
may declare his mind with regard to the question 
under discussion ; in which the pastors have the 
judicial voice. Such, in fact, as those four first were 
of which S. Gregory made so great account that he 
made this protestation concerning them : " I declare 
that like the four books of the Holy Gospel do I 
receive and venerate the four Councils.* Let us then 
consider a little how strong their authority should be 
over the understanding of Christians. And see how 
the Apostles speak of them : It has seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost and to us. Therefore the authority of 
councils ought to be revered as resting on the action 
of the Holy Ghost. For if against that Pharisaic 
heresy the Holy Ghost, doctor and guide of his Church, 
assisted the assembly, we must also believe that on all 
like occasions he will still assist the meetings of pastors, 
to regulate by their mouth both our actions and 
our beliefs. It is the same Church, as dear to the 
heavenly Spouse as she was then, in greater need than 
she was then, — what reason therefore can there be 
why he should not give her the same assistance as he 

* Ej;ust. 24. 

2 24 The Catholic Controversy, [part a 

gave her then on like occasion ? Consider, I beg you, 
the importance of the Gospel words : And if he will 
not hear the Church, let him he to thee as the heathen 
and the jpnUican* And when can we hear the Church 
more distinctly than by the voice of a general Council, 
where the heads of the Church come together to state 
and resolve difficulties ? The body speaks not by its 
legs, nor by its hands, but only by its head, and so, 
how can the Church better pronounce sentence than 
by its heads ? But Our Lord explains himself : 
Again I say to you^ that if tioo of you shall agree on 
earth concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it 
shall be done for them hy my Father who is in heaven. . . . 
For where there are two or three gathered together in my 
name, there am I in the midst of them. If two or 
three being gathered together in the name of Our 
Lord, when need is, have so particular an assistance 
from him that he is in the midst of them as a general 
in the midst of his army, as a doctor and regent 
among his disciples, if the Father infallibly gives them 
a gracious hearing concerning what they ask, how 
would he refuse his Holy Spirit to the general 
assembly of the pastors of the Church ? 

Again, if the legitimate assembly of the pastors 
and heads of the Church could once be surprised by 
error, how would the word of the Master be verified : 
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it if How 
could error and hellish strength more triumphantly 
seize upon the Church than by having subdued doctors, 
pastors, and captains, with the general ? And this 
word : I am with you all days even to the consummation 
of the world :i — what would become of it ? And how 
* Matt, xviii. f lb. xvi. i8. t lb. xxviii. ult. 

ART. IV. c. II.] The Rule of Faith. 225 

would the Church be tlu 'pillar and ground of truth ^' 
if its bases and foundations support error and false- 
hood ? Doctors and pastors are the visible founda- 
tions of the Church, on whose ministry the rest is 

Finally, what stricter command have we than to 
take our food from the hand of our pastors ? Does 
not S. Paul say that the Holy Ghost has placed them 
over the flock to rule us,t and that Our Lord has given 
them to us that we may not he tossed to and fro, and 
carried about with every wind of doctrine ! | What 
respect then must we not pay to the ordinances and 
canons which emanate from their general assembly ? 
It is true that taken separately their teachings are 
subject to correction, but when they are together and 
when all the ecclesiastical authority is collected into 
one, who shall dispute the sentence which comes 
forth ? If the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it 
be preserved ? If the chiefs are blind, who shall lead 
the others ? If the pillars are falling, who shall hold 
them up ? In a word, what has the Church more grand, 
more certain, more solid, for the overthrow of heresy, 
than the judgment of General Councils ? The Scrip- 
ture, — Beza will say. But I have already shown that 
" heresy is of the understanding not of the Scripture, 
the fault lies in the meaning, not in the words." § 
Who knows not how many passages the Arian brought 
forward ? What was there to be said against him 
except that he understood them wrongly ? But he is 
quite right to believe that it is you who interpret 
wrongly, not he, you that are mistaken, not he ; that 

* I Tim. iii. 15. f Acts xx. 28. X Eph. iv. 14. 

§ Hilar, de Trin. ii 

2 26 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

his appeal to the analogy of the faith is more sound 
than yours, so long as they are but private individuals 
who oppose his novelties. Yes, if one deprive the 
Councils of supreme authority in decision and declara- 
tions necessary for the understanding of the Holy 
Word, this Holy Word will be as much profaned as 
texts of Aristotle, and our articles of religion will be 
subject to never-ending revision, and from being safe 
and steady Christians we shall become wretched 

Athanasius says * that " the word of the Lord by 
the Ecumenical Council of Mce remains for ever." S. 
Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of the ApoUinarists who 
boasted of having been recognised by a Catholic coun- 
cil : — " If either now," says he,t " or formerly, they 
have been received, let them prove it and we will 
agree, for it will be clear that they assent to the right 
doctrine, and it cannot be otherwise." S. Augustine 
says \ that the celebrated question about Baptism 
pressed by the Donatists made some Bishops doubt, 
" until the whole world in plenary council formulated 
beyond all doubt what was most wholesomely believed." 
" The decision of the priestly Council (of Nice)," says 
Eufinus (i.), " is conveyed to Constantine. He venerates 
it as settled by God, in such sense that if any one 
were to oppose it he would be working his own de- 
struction, as opposing himself to God." But if any one 
supposes that because he can produce analogies, texts 
of Scripture, Greek and Hebrew words, he is therefore 
allowed to make doubtful again what has already been 
determined by General Councils, he must bring patents 
from heaven duly signed and sealed, or else he must 

* ad Ejpisc. Afric. f ad Chelid. + de Bap. Contra Don. i. 

ART. IV. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 227 

admit that anybody else may do as he does, that 
everything is at the mercy of our rash speculations, 
that everything is uncertain and subject to the variety 
of the judgments and considerations of men. The 
Wise Man gives us other counsel : '"'' The words of the 
wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which 
by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd. 
More than these, my son, require not. 



Now, will you remain asleep during this shock which 
your masters have given to the Church ? Consider 
with yourselves, I pray you. Luther in the book 
which he has composed on the Councils is not content 
with tearing down the stones that are visible, but goes 
so far as to sap the very foundations of the Church. 
Who would credit this of Luther, that great and 
glorious reformer, as Beza calls him ? How does he 
treat the great Council of Nice ? Because the Council 
forbids those who have mutilated themselves to be 
received into the clerical ministry, and presently again 
forbids ecclesiastics to keep in their houses other 
women besides their mothers or their sisters : — 
" Pressed on this point/' says Luther, " I do not allow 
[the presence of] the Holy Spirit in this Council. And 
* Eccles. xii. ii, I2. 

2 28 The Catholic Controversy. [partil 

why ? An debebit episcopus aut concionator ilium 
intolerabilem ardorem et sestum amoris illiciti sustinere, 
et neque conjugio neque castratione se ab his periculis 
liberare ? Is there no other work for the Holy Spirit 
to do in Councils than to bind and burden his ministers 
by making impossible, dangerous, unnecessary laws ? " 
He makes exception for no Council, but seriously 
holds that the GuH alone can do as much as a Council. 
Such is the opinion of this great reformer. 

But what need have I to go far ? Beza says in the 
Epistle to the King of France, that your reform will 
refuse the authority of no Council; so far he speaks 
well, but what follows spoils all : " provided/' says he, 
" that the Word of God test it." 

But, for God's sake, when will they cease darkening 
the question ! The Councils, after the fullest consul- 
tation, when the test has been made by the holy 
touchstone of the Word of God, decide and define 
some article. If after all this another test has to be 
tried before their determination is received, will not 
another also be wanted ? Who will not want to 
apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled ? 
After the test has been applied by the Council, Beza 
and his disciples want to try again ? And who shall 
stop another from asking as much, in order to see if 
the Council's test has been properly tried ? And why 
not a third to know if the second is faithful ? — and 
then a fourth, to test the third ? Everything must be 
done over again, and posterity will never trust anti- 
quity but will go ever turning upside down the 
holiest articles of the faith in the wheel of their 

We are not hesitating as to whether we should 

ABT. IV. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 229 

receive a doctrine at haphazard, or should test it by 
the application of God's A¥ord. But what we say is 
that when a Council has applied this test, our brains 
have not now to revise but to believe. Once let the 
canons of Councils be submitted to the test of private 
individuals, — as many persons, so many tastes, so 
many opinions. 

The article of the real presence of Our Lord in the 
most Holy Sacrament had been received under the test 
of many Councils. Luther wished to make another 
trial, Zwingle another trial on that of Luther, Brentius 
another on these, Calvin another, — as many tests so 
many opinions. But, I beseech you, if the test aS' 
applied by a General Council be not enough to settle 
the minds of men, how shall the authority of some 
nobody be able to do it ? That is too great an 

Some of the most learned ministers of Lausanne, 
these late years. Scripture and analogy of faith in hand, 
oppose the doctrine of Calvin concerning justification. 
To bear the attack of their arguments no new reasons 
appear, though some wretched little tracts, insipid and 
void of doctrine, are set a-going. How are these men 
treated ? They are persecuted, driven away, threatened. 
Why is this ? " Because they teach a doctrine con- 
trary to the profession of faith of our Church." 
Gracious heavens ! the doctrine of the Council of Mce, 
after an approbation of thirteen hundred years, is to be 
submitted to the tests of Luther, Calvin, and Beza, and 
there shall be no trial made of the Calvinistic doctrine, 
quite new, entirely doubtful, patched up and incon- 
sistent ! Why, at least, may not each one try it for 
himself ? If that of Nice has not been able to quiet 

230 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

your brains, why would you, by your statements 
impose quiet on the brains of your companions, who 
are as good as you, as wise and as consistent ? Behold 
the iniquitousness of these judges ; to give liberty to 
their own opinions they lower the ancient Councils, 
while with their own opinions they would bridle those 
of others. They seek their own glory, be sure of that ; 
and just as much as they take away from the Ancients 
do they attribute to themselves. 

Beza in the Epistle to the King of France and in the 
fore-mentioned Treatise, says that the Council of Nice 
was a true Council if ever there was one. He says 
the truth, never did good Christian doubt about it, nor 
about the other first three ; but if it be such, why 
does Calvin call that sentence in the Symbol of the 
Council — Deum de Deo lumen de lumine — hard ? And 
how is it that that word o/noovacov (consuhstantialem) 
was so offensive to Luther — " My soul hates this word 
homoousion ; " a word, however, which so entirely 
approved itself to that great Council ? How is it you 
do not maintain the reality of the body of Our Lord in 
the holy Sacrament, that you call superstition the 
most holy sacrifice of the same precious body of Our 
Saviour which is offered by the priests, and that you 
will make no difference between the bishop and the 
priest, — since all this is so expressly not defined but 
presupposed, there, as perfectly well known in the 
Church ? Never would Luther, or Peter Martyr, or 
Ochin have been ministers of yours, if they had 
remembered the acts of the great Council of Chalcedon ; 
for it is most expressly forbidden there for religious 
men and women to marry. 

Oh how good it would have been to see the round 

AET. IV. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 231 

of this your lake if this Council of Chalcedon had 
been held in reverence ! Oh how often would your 
ministers have kept silence, and most rightfully, — for 
there is there an express command to laymen by no 
means to lay hands upon the goods of Ecclesiastics, 
to everybody to join in no revolt against the bishop, 
and neither to act nor to speak contumeliously against 
the ministers of the Church. The Council of Con- 
stantinople attributes the primacy to the Pope of 
Eome, and presupposes this as a thing of universal 
knowledge ; so does that of Chalcedon. But is there 
any article in which we differ from you, which has 
not been several times condemned either in holy 
General Councils, or in particular ones received gene- 
rally ? And yet your ministers have resuscitated 
them, without shame, without scruple, not otherwise 
than though they were certain holy deposits and 
treasures hidden to Antiquity, or by Antiquity most 
curiously locked up in order that we might have the 
benefit of them in this age. 

I am well aware that in the Councils there are 
articles concerning Ecclesiastical order and discipline, 
which can be changed and are but temporary. But 
it is not for private persons to interfere with them ; the 
same authority which drew them up is required for 
abrogating them ; if anybody else tries to do so it is in 
vain, and the authority is not the same unless it is a 
Council, or the general Head, or the custom of the 
whole Church. As to decrees on doctrines of faith 
they are invariable; what is once true is so unto 
eternity ; and the Councils call canons (that is, rules) 
what they determine in this, because they are inviol- 
able rules for our faith. 

232 The Catholic Co7itr over sy. [pabth. 

But all this is to be understood of true Councils, 
either general or provincial, approved by General Coun- 
cils or the Apostolic See. Such as was not that of 
the four hundred prophets assembled by Achab : * for 
it was neither general, since those of Juda were not 
called to it, nor duly assembled, for it had no priestly 
authority. And those prophets were not legitimate 
or acknowledged as such by Josaphat, King of Juda, 
when he said : Is there not here some prophet of the 
Lord that we may inquire hy him ? — as if he would 
say that the others were not prophets of the Lord. 
Such, again, was not the assembly of the priests 
against Our Lord ; which was so far from having 
warrant in Scripture for the assistance of the Holy 
Spirit, that on the contrary it had been declared a 
private one by the Prophets ; and truly right reason 
required that when the King was present his lieu- 
tenants should lose authority, and that the High 
Priest being present the dignity of the vicar should 
be reduced to the condition of the rest. Besides, it 
had not the form of a Council ; it was a tumultuous 
meeting, wanting in the requisite order, without autho- 
rity from the supreme head of the Church, who was 
Our Lord, there present with a visible presence, whom 
they were bound to acknowledge. In truth, when 
the great sacrificer is visibly present, the vicar cannot 
be called chief; when the governor of a fortress is 
present, it is for him, not for his lieutenant, to give 
the word. Besides all this, the synagogue was to be 
changed and transferred at that time, and this its 
crime had been predicted. But the Catholic Church 
is never to be transferred, so long as the world shall 

* 3 Kings xxii. 6. 

ART. IV. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith. 233 

be world ; we are not waiting for any third legislator, 
nor any other priesthood ; but she is to be eternal. 
And yet Our Lord did this honour to the sacrificial 
dignity of Aaron that in spite of all the bad intention 
of those who held it the High Priest prophesied and 
uttered a most certain judgment {that it is expedient 
one man should die for the people, and the whole nation 
perish not)*, which he spoke not of himself and by 
chance, but he projyhesied, says the Evangelist, heing 
the High Priest of that year. 

Thus Our Lord would conduct the Synagogue and 
the priestly authority with singular honour to its 
tomb, when he made it give place to the Catholic 
Church and the Evangelic priesthood : and then when 
the Synagogue came to an end (which was in the 
resolution to put Our Lord to death), the Church was 
founded in that very death : / have finished the work 
which thou gavest me to do,f said Our Lord after the 
Supper. And in the Supper Our Lord had instituted 
the New Testament ; so that the Old, with its cere- 
monies and its priesthood, lost its force and its privi- 
leges, though the confirmation of the New was only 
made by the death of the testator, as S. Paul says. J 
We must then no longer take account of the privileges 
of the Synagogue, as they were founded on a Testa- 
ment which became old, and was abrogated when they 
said these cruel words : Crucify him, or those others, 
blaspheming : What further need have we of witnesses ? 
For this was that very dashing against the stumbling- 
stone, according to the ancient predictions. 

My intention has been to destroy the force of the 
two objections which are raised against the infallible 

* John xi. 50, 51. + John xvii. 4. + Heb. ix. 

2 34 ^-^^ Catholic Controversy. [pabth. 

authority of Councils and of the Church, the others 
will be answered in our treatment of particular points 
of Catholic doctrine. There is nothing so certain but 
that it can meet with opposition, but truth remains 
firm and is glorified by the assaults of what is con- 
trary to it. 




Theodosius the Elder found no better way of putting 
down the disputes of his time concerning religious 
matters than to follow the counsel of Sisinnius, — to 
bring together the chiefs of the sects, and ask them if 
they held the ancient Fathers, who had had charge of 
the Church before all these disputes began, to be 
honest, holy, good. Catholic and Apostolic men. To 
which the sectaries answering, yes ; he replied : Let 
us then examine your doctrine by theirs ; if yours is 
conformable to it let us retain it, otherwise let us give 
it up.* There is no better plan in the world. Since 
Calvin and Beza own that the Church continued pure 
for the first six hundred years, let us see whether your 
Church is in the same faith and the same doctrine. 

* Sozom. vii. 12. The Saint, in a marginal note, says that this 
passage is to be put at the beginning of the following chapter ; but 
as, unfortunately, no following chapter is extant, we retain the passage 
here. [Tr.] 

ART. V. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 235 

And who can better witness to us the faith which the 
Church followed in those ancient times, than they 
who then lived with her, at her table ? Who can 
better describe to us the manners of this heavenly 
Spouse, in the flower of her age, than those who have 
had the honour of holding the principal offices about 
her ? And in this aspect the Fathers deserve that we 
yield them our faith, not on account of the exquisite 
doctrine with which they were furnished, but for the 
uprightness of their consciences, and the fidelity with 
which they acted in their charges. 

One does not so much require knowledge in wit- 
nesses as honesty and good faith. We do not want 
them here as authors of our faith, but as witnesses of 
the belief in which the Church of their time lived. 
No one can give more conclusive evidence than those 
who ruled it : they are beyond reproach in every 
respect. He who would know what path the Church 
followed at that time, let him ask those who have 
most faithfully accompanied her. The wise man %oil\ 
seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and ivill he occu- 
pied in the prophets. He will keep the sayings of 
renowned men (Ecclus. xxxix. i, 2). Hear what Jere- 
mias says (vi. 1 6) : Thus saith the Lord : stand ye on 
the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, which is 
the good way, and walk ye in it ; and you shall find 
refreshment for your soids. And the Wise Man (Ec- 
clus. viii. 11): Let not the discoiorse of the ancients 
escape thee, for they have learned of their fathers. And 
we must not only honour their testimonies as most 
assured and irreproachable ; but also give great credit 
to their doctrine, beyond all our inventions and curious 
searchings. We are not in any doubt as to whether 

236 The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 

the ancient Fathers should be held as authors of our 
faith; we know, better than all your ministers do, 
that they are not. Nor are we disputing whether we 
must receive as certain, that which one or two of the 
Fathers may have held as opinions. Our difference is 
in this : You say you have reformed your church on 
the pattern of the ancient Church ; we deny it, and 
take to witness those who have seen it, who have 
guarded it, who have governed it: — is not this a 
straightforward proof, and one clear of all quibbling ? 
Here we are only maintaining the integrity and good 
faith of the witnesses. Besides this you say that your 
Church has been cut,* and reformed according to the 
true understanding of the Scriptures ; we deny it, and 
say that the ancient Fathers had more competence and 
learning than you, and yet judged that the meaning 
of the Scriptures was not such as you make out. Is 
not this a most certain proof ? You say that accord- 
ing to the Scriptures the Mass ought to be abolished ; 
all the ancient Fathers deny it. Whom shall we 
believe — this troop of ancient Bishops and Martyrs, or 
this band of new-comers ? That is where we stand. 
Now who does not see at first sight, that it is an un- 
bearable impudence to refuse belief to these myriad 
Martyrs, Confessors, Doctors, who have preceded us ? 
And if the faith of that ancient Church ouo^ht to serve 
as a rule of right-believing, we cannot better find this 
rule than in the writings and depositions of these our 
most holy and distinguished ancestors. 

* Here follows a passage marked as if to be left out : " by the rule 
and compass of the Scripture ; we deny it, and say that you have 
shortened, narrowed, and bent this rule, as formerly did those of 
Lesbos, to accommodate it to your notions. And . . ." [Tr.] 

ART. VI. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 237 





When Our Lord imposes a name upon men he always 
bestows some particular grace according to the name 
which he gives them. If he changes the name of that 
great father of believers, and of Abram makes him 
Abraham, also of a high father he makes him father of 
many, giving the reason at the same time : Thou shalt 
he called Abraham ; hecaiise I have made thee the father 
of many nations* And changing that of Sarai into Sara, 
of lady that she was in Abraham's house, he makes her 
lady of the nations and peoples who were to be born 
of her. If he changes Jacob into Israel, the reason is 
immediately given : For if thou hast been poiverftd 
against God, how much more shalt thou prevail against 
men.'f So that God by the names which he imposes 
not only marks the things named, but teaches us 
something of their qualities and conditions. Witness 
the angels, who have names only according to their 
offices, and S. John Baptist, who has the grace in his 
name which he announced in his preaching ; as is 
customary in that holy language of the Israelites. 
The imposition of the name in the case of S. Peter is 

* Gen. xvii. 5. t lb. xxxii. 28. 

238 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

no small argument of the particular excellence of his 
charge, according to the very reason which Our Lord 
appended : Thou art Peter, &c. 

But what name does he give him ? A name full of 
majesty, not common, not trivial, but one expressive 
of superiority and authority, like unto that of Abraham 
himself. For if Abraham was thus called because he 
was to be father of many nations, S. Peter has received 
this name because upon him as upon a firm rock was 
to be founded the multitude of Christians. And it is 
on account of this resem,blance that S. Bernard ^''" calls 
the dignity of Peter " patriarchate of Abraham." 

When Isaias would exhort the Jews by the example 
of Abraham, the stock from which they sprang, he 
calls Abraham Peter : Look unto Abraham, unto the 
rock (^petrarri) whence you are hewn ; . . . . look unto 
Abraham your father ;\ where he shows that this 
name of rock very properly refers to paternal authority. 
This name is one of Our Lord's names ; for what name 
do we find more frequently attributed to the Messias 
than that of rock ? | This changing and imposition 
of name is then very worthy of consideration. For 
the names that God gives are full of power and might. 
He communicates Peter's name to him; he has there- 
fore communicated to him some quality corresponding 
with the name. Our Lord himself is by excellence 
called the rock, because he is the foundation of the 
Church, and the corner-stone, the support, and the 
firmness, of this spiritual edifice : and he has declared 
that on S. Peter should his Church be built, and that 
he would establish him in tlie faith : Confirm thy 

* de Consi/I. n. f H. i, 2, 

X Eph. ii. 20 ; Ps. cxvii. 2i ; i Cor. x. 4. 

ART. VI. c. I.] The Rule of Faith, 239 

hrethren* I am well aware that he imposed a name 
upon the two brothers John and James, Boanerges, the 
sons of thunder ; f but this name is not one of supe- 
riority or command, but rather of obedience, nor proper 
or special but common to two, nor, apparently, was it 
permanent, since they have never since been called by 
it : it was rather a title of honour, on account of the 
excellence of their preaching. But in the case of S. 
Peter he gives a name permanent, full of authority, 
and so peculiar to him that we may well say : to which 
of the others hath he said at any time. Thou art Peter ? 
— showing that S. Peter was superior to the others. 

But I will remind you that Our Lord did not change 
S. Peter's name, but only added a new name to his 
old one, perhaps in order that he might remember in 
his authority what he had been, what his stock was, 
and that the majesty of the second name might be 
tempered by the humility of the first, and that if the 
name of Peter made us recognise him as chief, the 
name of Simon might tell us that he was not absolute 
chief, but obeying and subaltern chief, and head-servant. 
S. Basil seems to have given support to what I am 
saying, when he said : J " Peter denied thrice and was 
placed in the foundation. Peter had previously not 
denied, and had been pronounced blessed. He had 
said : Thoio art the Son of the living God, and thereupon 
had heard that he was Peter. The Lord thus returned 
his praise, because although he was a rock, yet he was 
not the rock ; for Christ is truly the immovable rock, 
but Peter on account of the rock. Christ indeed crives 
his own prerogative to others, yet he gives them not 
losing them himself, he holds them none the less. He 

* Luke xxii. 32. + Mark iii. 17. J Horn, dc Pcenit. 4. 

240 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

is a rock, and he made a rock ; what is his, he com- 
municates to his servants ; this is the proof of opulence, 
namely, to have and to give to others." Thus speaks 
S. Basil.* 

What does he [Christ] say ? three things ; but we 
must consider them one after the other : Thoit art 
Peter ; and upon this rock I will build my church ; and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it :'\' he says 
that Peter was a stone or rock, and that on this rock 
or this stone he would build his Church. 

But here we are in a difficulty : for it is granted 
that Our Lord has spoken to S. Peter, and of S. Peter 
as far as this — and upon this rock — but, it is said that 
in these words he no longer speaks of S. Peter. Now 
I ask you : — What likelihood is there that Our Lord 
would have made this grand preface : Blessed art thou 
Simon Bar-jona ; because flesh and blood hath not 
revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven: 
and I say to thee, &c., in order to say no more than : 
Thou art Peter, — and then suddenly have changed his 
subject and gone on to speak of something else ? And 
again, when he says : And on this rock I will build my 
church, — do you not see that he evidently speaks of the 
rock of which he had previously spoken ? and of what 
other rock had he spoken but Simon, to whom he had 
said : Thou art Peter ? But this is the ambiguity which 
may be causing hesitation in your mind ; you perhaps 
think that as Peter is now the proper name of a man, 
it was so then, and that so we transfer the signification 
of Peter to rock by equivocation of masculine and femi- 
nine. But we do not equivocate here ; for it is but 
one same word, and taken in the same sense, when 

* Here there is an hiatus in the MS. [Tr.] + Matt. xvi. 

ART. VI. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 241 

Our Lord said to Simon : Thou art Peter, and when he 
said : and on this rock I ivill hnild my church. And 
this name of Peter was not a proper name of a man, 
but was only [then] appropriated to Simon Bar-jona. 
This you will much better understand, if you take it 
in the language in which Our Lord said it; he spoke 
not Latin but Syriac. He therefore called him not 
Peter but Cephas, thus : Thoio art Cephas, and on this 
Cephas I will huild : as if one said in Latin : TJiou art 
saxum, and on this saxum ; or in French : Thou art 
rocher, and on this roclier I will huild my church* 
Now what doubt remains that it is the same person of 
whom he says : Thou art Rock, and of whom he says : 
And on this Rock ? Certainly there is no other Cephas 
spoken of in all this chapter but Simon. On what 
ground then do we come to refer this relative hanc 
to another Cephas besides the one who immediately 
precedes ? 

You will say : — Yes, but the Latin says : Thou art 
Fctrus, and not : Thou art Petra : now this relative 
hanc, which is feminine, cannot refer to Petrus, which 
is masculine. The Latin version indeed has other 
arofuments enoueh to make it clear that this stone is 
no other than S. Peter, and therefore, to accommodate 
the word to the person to whom it was given as a 
name, who was masculine, there is given it a corre- 
sponding termination ; as the Greek does, which had 
put : Thoti art Trer/jo?, a7id on this ry irerpa. But it 
does not come out so well in Latin as in Greek, 
because in Latin Petrus does not mean exactly the 
same as petra, but in Greek irerpo'S and irerpa is the 
very same thing. Similarly in French rocher and roche 
* Or in English : Thou a/rt Rock, and on this Rock. [Tr.] 

m. Q 

242 The Catholic Controversy. [partil 

is the same thing, yet still so that if I had to predicate 
either word of a man, I would rather apply to him the 
name of roclier than of roche^ to make the masculine 
word correspond with the masculine subject. I have 
only to add, on this interpretation, that nobody doubts 
that Our Lord called S. Peter Cephas (for S. John 
records it most explicitly, and S. Paul, to the Gala- 
tians), or that Cephas means a stone or a rock, as S. 
Jerome says.* 

In fine, to prove to you that it is really S. Peter of 
whom it is said : And on this rock, — I bring forward 
the words that follow. For it is all one to promise 
him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and to say to 
him : Upon this rock ; now we cannot doubt that it is 
S. Peter to whom he promises the keys of the kingdom 
of heaven, since he says clearly : And to thee will I 
give the keys of the kingdom of heaven : if therefore we 
do not wish to disconnect this piece of the Gospel from 
the preceding and the following words in order to place 
it elsewhere at our fancy, we cannot believe but that 
all this is said to S. Peter and of S. Peter : Thou art 
Peter, and on this rock I will 'build my church. And 
this the Catholic Church, when, even according to 
the admission of the ministers, she was true and pure, 
has confessed loudly and clearly in the assembly of 
630 Bishops at the Council of Chalcedou.t 

Let us now see what these words are worth and 
what they import, (i.) We know that what the head 
is to a living body, the root to a tree, that the founda- 
tion is to a building. Our Lord then, who is comparing 
his Church to a building, when he says that he will 
build it on S. Peter, shows that S. Peter will be its 
* In Gal, ii. 13. t Act iii. 

ART. VI. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 243 

foundation-stone, the root of this precious tree, the 
head of this excellent body. The French call both the 
building and the family, house, on this principle, that 
as a house is simply a collection of stones and other 
materials arranged with order, correspondence and 
measure, so a family is simply a collection of persons 
with order and interdependence. It is after this like- 
ness that Our Lord calls his Church a building, and 
when he makes S. Peter its foundation, he makes him 
head and superior of this family. 

(2.) By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity 
and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on 
which one raises the building is the first, the others 
rest on it. Other stones may be removed without 
overthrowing the edifice, but he who takes away the 
foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates 
of hell can in no wise prevail against the Church, they 
can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, 
which they cannot take away and overturn without 
entirely overturning the whole edifice. 

He shows one of the differences there are between 
S. Peter and himself. For Our Lord is foundation and 
founder, foundation and builder ; - but S. Peter is only 
foundation. Our Lord is its Master and Lord in per- 
petuity ; S. Peter has only the management of it, as 
we shall explain by and by. 

(3.) By these words Our Lord shows that the stones 
which are not placed and fixed on this foundation 
are not in the Church, and form no part thereof. 

244 ^^^ Catholic Controversy, [part n. 



But a great proof of the contrary, as our adversaries 
think, is that, according to S. Paul: No one can lay 
another foundation hut that which is laid : which is 
Christ Jesus ; ^^ and according to the same we are domes- 
tics of God ; huilt upon the foundation of the Apostles 
and Prophets, Jesus himself being the chief corner-stone. \ 
And, in the Apocalypse,| the wall of the holy city had 
twelve foundations, and in these twelve foundations 
the names of the twelve Apostles. If then, say they, 
all the twelve Apostles are foundations of the Church, 
how do you attribute this title to S. Peter in parti- 
cular ? And if S. Paul says that no one can lay 
another foundation than Our Lord, how do you dare 
to say that by these words : Thou art Peter, and on 
this rock I will luild my church, S. Peter has been 
established as foundation of the Church ? Why do 
you not rather say, asks Calvin, that this stone on 
which the Church is founded is no other than Our 
Lord ? Why do you not rather declare, says Luther, 
that it is the confession of faith whicli Peter had 
made ? 

But in good truth it is an ill way of interpreting 
Scripture to overturn one passage by another, or to 
strain it by a forced interpretation to a strange and 
unbecoming sense. We must leave to it as far as 
possible the naturalness and sweetness of the sense 
which belongs to it. 

In this case, then, since we see that Scripture 
* I Cor. iii. ii. + Eph. ii. 19, 20. + xxi. 14. 

ART. VI. 0. II.] The Rule of Faith. 245 

teaches us there is no other foundation than Our 
Lord, and the same teaches us clearly that S. Peter 
is such also, yea and further that the Apostles are so, 
we are not to give up the first teaching for the second, 
the second for the third, but to leave them all three 
in their entirety. Which we shall easily do if we 
consider these passages in good faith and sincerely. 

Now Our Lord is in very deed the only foundation 
of the Church ; he is the foundation of our faith, of 
our hope and charity ; he is the foundation of all 
ecclesiastical authority and order, and of all the doc- 
trine and administration which are therein. Who ever 
doubted of this ? But, some one will say to me, if 
he is the only foundation, how do you place S. Peter 
also as foundation ? ( i .) You do us wrong ; it is not 
we who place him as foundation. He, besides whom 
no other can be placed, he himself placed him. So 
that if Christ is the foundation of the Church, as he 
is, we must believe that S. Peter is such too, since 
Our Lord has placed him in this rank. If any one 
besides Our Lord himself had given him this grade 
we should all cry out with you : No one can lay 
another foundation hut that which is laid. (2.) And 
then, have you well considered the words of S. Paul ? 
He will not have us recognise any foundation besides 
Our Lord, but neither is S. Peter nor are the other 
Apostles foundations besides Our Lord, they are sub- 
ordinate to Our Lord : their doctrine is not other 
than that of their Master, but their very Master's 
itself. Thus the supreme charge which S. Peter had 
in the militant Church, by reason of which he is 
called foundation of the Church, as chief and governor, 
is not beside the authority of his Master, but is only 

246 The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 

a participation in this, so that he is not the founda- 
tion of this hierarchy hesides Our Lord but rather in 
Our Lord : as we call him most holy Father in Our 
Lord, outside whom he would be nothing. We do 
not indeed recognise any other secular authority than 
that of His Highness [of Savoy], but we recognise 
several under this, which are not properly other than 
that of His Highness, because they are only certain 
portions and participations of it. (3.) In a word, let 
us interpret S. Paul passage by passage : do you not 
think he makes his meaning clear enough when he 
says : You are huilt wpon the foundations of the Pro- 
fhets and Ajpostles ? But that you may know these 
foundations to be no other than that which he 
preached, he adds : Christ himself heing the chief corner- 
stone. Our Lord then is foundation and S. Peter 
also, but with so notable a difference that in respect 
of the one the other may be said not to be it. For 
Our Lord is foundation and founder, foundation with- 
out other foundation, foundation of the natural. Mosaic 
and Evangelic Church, foundation perpetual and im- 
mortal, foundation of the militant and triumphant, 
foundation by his own nature, foundation of our faith, 
hope and charity, and of the efficacy of the Sacra- 

S. Peter is foundation, not founder, of the whole 
Church ; foundation but founded on another founda- 
tion, which is Our Lord ; foundation of the Evangelic 
Church alone, foundation subject to succession, founda- 
tion of the militant not of the triumphant, foundation 
by participation, ministerial not absolute foundation ; 
in fine, administrator and not lord, and in no way the 
foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the 

AET. VI. c. II.] The Rule of Faith. 247 

efficacy of the Sacraments. A difference so great as 
this makes the one unable, in comparison, to be called 
a foundation by the side of the other, whilst, however, 
taken by itself, it can be called a foundation, in order 
to pay proper regard to the Holy Word. So, although 
he is the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds ■^'' 
under himself, between whom and his Majesty there 
is so great a difference that he declares himself to be 
the only shepherd.! 

At the same time it is not good reasoning to say : 
all the Apostles in general are called foundations of 
the Church, therefore S. Peter is only such in the 
same way as the others are. On the contrary, as Our 
Lord has said in particular, and in particular terms, 
to S. Peter, what is afterwards said in general of the. 
others, we must conclude that there is in S. Peter 
some particular property of foundation, and that he 
in particular has been what the whole college has 
been together. The whole Church has been founded 
on all the Apostles, and the whole on S. Peter in 
particular ; it is then S. Peter who is its foundation 
taken by himself, which the others are not. For to 
whom has it ever been said : Thou art Peter, &c. 1 
It would be to violate the Scripture to say that all 
the Apostles in general have not been foundations 
of the Church. It would also be to violate the 
Scripture to deny that S. Peter was so in particular. 
It is necessary that the general word should produce 
its general effect, and the particular its particular, in 
order that nothing may remain useless and without 
mystery out of Scriptures so mysterious. We have 
only to see for what general reason all the Apostles 
* Eph. iv. II. t John x. ii ; Ezech. xxidv. 23. 

248 The Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

are called foundations of the Church : namely, because 
it is they who by their preaching have planted the 
faith and the Christian doctrine ; in which if we are 
to give some prerogative to any one of the Apostles 
it will be to that one who said : / have, laboured more 
abundantly than all they* 

And it is in this sense that is meant the passage 
of the Apocalypse. For the twelve Apostles are called 
foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem, because they 
were the first who converted the world to the Chris- 
tian religion, which was as it were to lay the founda- 
tions of the glory of men, and the seeds of their 
happy immortality. But the passage of S. Paul seems 
to be understood not so much of the person of the 
Apostles as of their doctrine. For it is not said that 
we are built upon the Apostles, but upon the founda- 
tion of the Apostles — that is, upon the doctrine which 
they have announced. This is easy to see, because 
it is not only said that we are upon the foundation 
of the Apostles, but also of the Prophets, and we 
know well that the Prophets have not otherwise been 
foundations of the Evangelical Church than by their 
doctrine. And in this matter all the Apostles seem 
to stand on a level, unless S. John and S. Paul go 
first for the excellence of their theology. It is then 
in this sense that all the Apostles are foundations of 
the Church ; but in authority and government S. 
Peter precedes all the others as much as the head 
surpasses the members ; for he has been appointed 
ordinary pastor and supreme head of the Church, the 
others have been delegated pastors intrusted with as 
full power and authority over all the rest of the 

* 1 Cor. XV. 10. 

ART. VI. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 249 

Church as S. Peter, except that S. Peter was the head 
of them all and their pastor as of all Christendom. 
Thus they were foucdations of the Church equally 
with him as to the conversion of souls and as to 
doctrine; but as to the authority of governing, they 
were so unequally, as S. Peter was the ordinary head 
not only of the rest of the whole Church but of the 
Apostles also. For Our Lord had built on him the 
whole of his Church, of which they were not only 
parts but the principal and noble parts. " Although 
the strength of the Church," says S. Jerome,* " is 
equally established on all the Apostles, yet amongst 
the twelve one is chosen that a head being appointed 
occasion of schism may be taken away." " There are, 
indeed," says S. Bernard to his Eugenius,t and we 
can say as much of S. Peter for the same reason, 
" there are others who are custodians and pastors of 
flocks, but thou hast inherited a name as much the 
more glorious as it is more special." 



Our adversaries are so angry at our proposing to them 
the chair of S. Peter as a holy touchstone by which 
we may test the meanings, imaginations and fancies 
they put into the Scriptures, that they overthrow 

* ad Joviu. i. 27. + de Consid. ii. 8. 

250 The Catholic Controversy. [pakt n. 

heaven and earth to wrest out of our hands the 
express words of Our Lord, by which, having said to 
S. Peter that he would build his Church upon him, in 
order that we might know more particularly what he 
meant he continues in these words : And to thee I will 
give the heys of the kingdom of heaven. One could not 
speak more plainly. He has said : Blessed art thou, 
Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood, &c. And I 
say to thee that thou art Peter, . . . and to thee will 
I give, &c. This to thee refers to that very person to 
whom he had said : And I say to thee ; — it is then to 
S. Peter. But the ministers try as hard as they can 
to disturb the clear fountain of the Gospel, so that 
S. Peter may not be able to find his keys therein, and 
that we may turn disgusted from the water of the 
holy obedience which we owe to the vicar of Our 

And therefore they have bethought them of saying 
that S. Peter had received this promise of Our Lord 
in the name of the whole Church, without having 
received any particular privilege in his own person. 
But if this is not violating Scripture, never did man 
violate it. For was it not to S. Peter that he was 
speaking ? and how could he better express his inten- 
tion than by saying : And I say to thee. . . . I ivill 
give to thee ? Put with this his having just spoken 
of the Church, and said : The gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it, which would have prevented him 
from saying : And I will give to thee the keys of the 
kingdom, if he had wished to give them to the whole 
Church immediately. For he does not say to it, but, 
to thee, will I give. If it is allowed thus to go sur- 
mising over clear words, there will be nothing in the 

ART. VI. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith, 251 

Scripture which cannot be twisted into any meaning 
whatever ; though I do not deny that S. Peter in this 
place was speaking in his own name and in that of the 
whole Church, not indeed as delegated by the Church 
or by the disciples (for we have not the shadow of 
a sign of this commission in the Scripture, and the 
revelation on which he founds his confession had been 
made to himself alone — unless the whole college of 
Apostles was named Simon Bar-jona), but as mouth- 
piece, prince and head of the Church and of the others, 
according to S. Chrysostom and S. Cyril on this place, 
and " on account of the primacy * of his Apostolate," 
as S. Augustine says. It was then the whole Church 
that spoke in the person of S. Peter as in the person 
of its head, and not S. Peter that spoke in the person 
of the Church. For the body speaks only in its head, 
and the head speaks in itself not in its body ; and 
although S. Peter was not as yet head and prince of 
the Church, which office was only conferred on him 
after the resurrection of the Master, it was enough 
that he was already chosen out for it and had a 
pledge of it. As also the other Apostles had not 
as yet the Apostolic power, travelling over all that 
blessed country rather as scholars with their tutor to 
learn the profound lessons which afterwards they 
taught to others than as Apostles or Envoys, which 
they afterwards were throughout the whole world, 
when their sound went forth into all the earth.t 
Neither do I deny that the rest of the prelates of the 
Church have a share in the use of the keys ; and as 

* Ult. in Joan. The French text has jperwajimce, probably a mis- 
reading for primacie. [Tr.] 
t Ps. xviii. 5. 

252 The Catholic Controversy, [part n. 

for the Apostles I own that they have every authority 
here. I say only that the giving of the keys is here 
promised principally to S. Peter, and for the benefit 
of the Church. For although it is he who has received 
them, still it is not for his private advantage but for 
that of the Church. The control of the keys is 
promised to S. Peter in particular, and principally, 
then afterwards to the Church ; but it is promised 
principally for the general good of the Church, then 
afterwards for that of S. Peter ; as is the case with 
all public charges. 

But, one will ask me, what difference is there 
between the promise which Our Lord here makes to 
S. Peter to give him the keys, and that which he 
made to the Apostles afterwards ? For in truth it 
seems to have been but the same, because Our Lord 
explaining what he meant by the keys said : And 
whatsoever thou shalt hind upon earth, it shall he hound 
also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose, &c. — 
which is just what he said to the Apostles in general : 
Whatsoever you shall hind, &c.* If then he promises 
to all in general what he promises to Peter in par- 
ticular, there will be no ground for saying that 
S. Peter is greater than one of the others by this 

I answer that in the promise and in the execution 
of the promise Our Lord has always preferred S. 
Peter by expressions which oblige us to believe that 
he has been made head of the Church. And as to 
the promise, I confess that by these words : And what- 
soever thou shalt loose, Our Lord has promised no more 
to S. Peter than he did to the others afterwards : 
* Matt, xviii. 18. 

ART. VI. 0. III.1 The Rule of Faith. 253 

Whatsoever you shall hind, &c. For the words are the 
same in substance and in meaning in the two passages. 
I admit also that by these words : And whatsoever 
thou shalt loose, said to S. Peter, he explains the 
preceding : And I will give to thee the keys, but I 
deny that it is the same thing to promise the keys 
and to say : Whatsoever thou shalt loose. Let us then 
see what it is to promise the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven. And who knows not that when a master, 
going away from his house, leaves the keys with 
some one, what he does is to leave him the charge and 
governance thereof. When princes make their entrance 
into cities, the keys are presented to them as an 
acknowledgment of their sovereign authority. 

It is then the supreme authority which Our Lord 
here promises to S. Peter ; and in fact when the 
Scripture elsewhere wishes to speak of a sovereign 
authority it has used similar terms. In the Apocalypse 
(i. 17, 18), when Our Lord wishes to make himself 
known to his servant, he says to him : / am the first 
and the last, and alive and was dead: and behold I 
am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death 
and of hell. What does he mean by the keys of death 
and of hell, except the supreme power over the one 
and the other ? And there also where it is said : 
27iese things saith the Holy one and the True one, who 
hath the key of David : he that openeth and no man 
shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth (Ibid. iii. 7) — 
what can we understand but the supreme authority 
of the Church ? And what else is meant by what 
the Angel said to Our Lady (Luke i. 32): The Lord 
God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, 
and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever ? — the 

254 The Catholic Controversy, [paetil 

Holy Spirit making us know the kingship of our Lord, 
now by the seat or throne, now by the keys. But it 
is the commandment which in Isaias (xxii.) is given to 
Eliacim which is parallel in every particular with that 
which Our Lord gives to S. Peter. In it there is 
described the deposition of a sovereign-priest and 
governor of the Temple : Thus saith the Lord God of 
hosts : go get thee in to hi7n that dwelleth in the taber- 
nacle, to Sohna who is over the temple ; and thou shalt 
say to him — what dost thou here ? And further on : 
/ ivill dej)ose thee. See there the deposition of one, 
and now see the institution of the other. And it 
shall come to pass in that dag that I will call my 
servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him 
with thy rote, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, 
and will give thy power into his hand : and he shall be 
as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the 
house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of 
David upon his shoulder ; and he shall open, and none 
shall shut : and he shall shut and none shall open. 
Could anything fit better than these two Scriptures ? 
For : Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona^ because flesh 
and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father 
who is in heaven — is it not at least equivalent to : / 
will call my servant Eliaxim the son of Helcias ? And I 
say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
build my church, and the gates of hell, &c. — does this 
not signify the same as : / will clothe him with thy robe, 
and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give 
thy potver into his hand, and he shall be as a father to 
the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Juda ? 
And what else is it to be the foundation or foundation- 
stone of a family than to be there as father, to have 

ART. VI. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 255 

the superintendence, to be governor there ? And if 
one has had this assurance : / will lay the 'key of the 
house of David wpon his shoulder, the other has had no 
less, who had the promise : And I will give to thee the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven. And if when he has 
opened no one shall shut, when he has shut no one 
shall open ; so, when the other shall have loosened 
no one shall bind, when he shall have bound no one 
shall loosen. The one is Eliacim son of Helcias, the 
other, Simon the son of Jonas ; the one is clothed 
with the pontifical robe, the other with heavenly 
revelation ; the one has power in his hand, the other 
is a strong rock ; the one is as father in Jerusalem, 
the other is as foundation in the Church ; the one has 
the keys of the kingdom of David, the other those of 
the Church of the Gospel ; when one shuts nobody 
opens, when one binds nobody looses ; when one 
opens no one shuts, when one loosens nobody binds. 
What further remains to be said than that if ever 
Eliacim son of Helcias was head of the Mosaic 
Temple, Simon son of Jonas was the same of the 
Gospel Church ? Eliacim represented Our Lord as 
figure, S. Peter represents him as lieutenant ; Eliacim 
represented him in the Mosaic Church, and S. Peter 
in the Christian Church. Such is what is meant by 
this promise of giving the keys to S. Peter, a promise 
which was never made to the other Apostles. 

But I say that it is not all one to promise the 
keys of the kingdom and to say : JVhatever thou shalt 
loose, although one is an explanation of the other. 
And what is the difference ? — certainly just that 
which there is between the possession of an authority 
and the exercise of it. It may well happen that 

256 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

while a king lives, his queen, or his son, may have 
just as much power as the king himself to chastise, 
absolve, make gifts, grant favours : such person, how- 
ever, will not have the sceptre but only the exercise 
of it. He will indeed have the same authority, but 
not in possession, only in use and exercise. What 
he does will be valid, but he will not be head or 
king, he must recognise that his power is extra- 
ordinary, by commission and delegation, whereas the 
power of the king, which may be no greater, is 
ordinary and is his own. So Our Lord promising the 
keys to S. Peter remits to him the ordinary authority, 
and gives him that office in ownership, the exercise 
of which he referred to when he said : Whatsoever thou 
shalt loose, &c, Now afterwards, when he makes the 
same promise to the other Apostles, he does not give 
them the keys or the ordinary authority, but only 
gives them the use and exercise thereof. This differ- 
ence is taken from the very terms of the Scripture : 
for to loose and to hind signifies but the action and 
exercise, to have the keys, the habit. . . . See how 
different is the promise which Our Lord made to S. 
Peter from that which he made to the other Apostles. 
The Apostles all have the same power as S. Peter, 
but not in the same rank, inasmuch as they have it 
as delegates and agents, but S. Peter as ordinary head 
and permanent officer. And in truth it was fitting 
that the Apostles who were to plant the Church 
everywhere, should all have full power and entire 
authority as to the use of the keys and the exercise 
of their powers, while it was most necessary that 
one amongst them should have charge of the keys by 
office and dignity, — " that the Church, which is one," 

ART. VI. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith. 257 

as S. Cyprian says,^ " should by the word of the 
Lord be founded upon one who received the keys 



To which of the others was it ever said : / Aat'e "prayed 
for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou being 
once converted, confirm thy brethren? (Luke xxii. 32). 
Truly they are two privileges of great importance, 
these. Our Lord, when about to establish the faith 
in his Church, did not pray for the faith of any of the 
others in particular, but only of S. Peter as head. For 
what could be the object of this prerogative ? Satan 
hath sought you (yos) — you all ; hut I have prayed for 
thee, Peter^ — is not this to place him alone as respon- 
sible for all, as head and guide of the whole flock ? 
But who sees not how pregnant this passage is for our 
purpose ? Let us consider what precedes, and we shall 
find that Our Lord had declared to his Apostles that 
there was one of them greater than the others : He 
who is the greatest among you . . . and he that is the 
leader, — and immediately Our Lord goes on to say to 
him that the adversary was seeking to sift them, all 
of them, as wheat, but that still he had prayed for 
him in particular that his faith should not fail. I 
pray you, does not this grace which was so peculiar to 

* Ad Jubaianum. 

258 The Catholic Controversy. [part 11. 

him, and which was not common to the others, accord- 
ing to S. Thomas, show that S. Peter was that one 
who was greatest among them ? All are tempted, and 
prayer is made for one alone. But the words follow- 
ing render all this quite evident. For some Protestant 
might say that he prayed for S. Peter in particular on 
account of some other reason that might be imagined 
(for the imagination ever furnishes support enough for 
obstinacy), not because he was head of the others or 
because the faith of the others was maintained in their 
pastor. On the contrary, gentlemen, it is in order 
that heing once converted he might confirm his hrethren. 
He prays for S. Peter as for the con firmer and support 
of the others ; and what is this but to declare him 
head of the others ? Truly one could not give S. 
Peter the command to confirm the Apostles without 
charging him to have care of them. For how could 
he put this command in practice without paying regard 
to the weakness or the strength of the others in order 
to strengthen or confirm them ? Is this not to again 
call him foundation of the Church ? If he supports, 
secures, strengthens the very foundation-stones, how 
shall he not confirm all the rest ? If he has the charge 
of supporting the columns of the Church, how shall he 
not support all the rest of the building ? If he has 
the charge of feeding the pastors, must he not be 
sovereign pastor himself ? The gardener who sees the 
young plant exposed to the continual rays of the sun, 
and wishes to preserve it from the drought which 
threatens it, does not pour water on each branch, but 
having well steeped the root considers that all the rest 
is safe, because the root continues to distribute the 
moisture to the rest of the plant. Our Lord also, 

ART. VI. 0. v.] The Rtde of Faith, 259 

having planted this holy assembly of the disciples, 
prayed for the head and the root, in order that the 
water of faith might not fail to him who was therewith 
to supply all the rest, and in order that through the head 
the faith might always be preserved in the Church. 

But I must tell you, before closing this part of my 
subject, that the denial which S. Peter made on the 
day of the Passion must not trouble you here ; for he 
did not lose the faith, but only sinned as to the con- 
fession of it. Fear made him disavow that which he 
believed. He believed right but spoke wrong. 



We know that Our Lord gave a most ample procura- 
tion and commission to his Apostles to treat with the 
world concerning its salvation, when he said to them 
(Jolm XX.) : As the Father hath sent me I also send yoit 
. . . receive ye the Holy Ghost : tohose sins you shall 
forgive, &c. It was the execution of that promise of 
his which had been made them in general : Wliatsoever 
you shall hind, &c. But it was never said to any one 
of the other Apostles in particular : Thou art Peter, and 
ti'pon this rock I will huild ray Church, nor was it ever 
said to one of the others : Feed my sheep (John xxi. 
17). S. Peter alone had this charge. They were 
equal in the Apostolate, but into the pastoral dignity 
S. Peter alone was instituted : Feed my sheep. There 

26o The Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

are other pastors in the Church ; each must feed the 
flock which is tender him, as S. Peter says (i Ep. v. 2), 
or that over which the Holy Ghost hath placed him 
bishop, according to S. Paul (Acts xx. 28). But, "to 
which of the others," says S. Bernard,* " were ever the 
sheep so absolutely, so universally committed: Feed 
T/iy sheep ? " 

And to prove that it is truly S. Peter to whom these 
words are addressed, I betake myself to the holy Word. 
It is S. Peter only who is called Simon son of John, 
or of eJona (for one is the same as the other, and Jona 
is but the short of Joannah) ; and in order that we 
may know that this Simon son of John is really 
S. Peter, S. John bears witness that it was Simon 
Peter — Jesus saith to Simon Peter : Simon, son of John, 
lovest thou me more than these ? It is then S. Peter 
to whom in particular Our Lord says : Feed my sheep. 

And Our Lord puts S. Peter apart from the others 
in that place where he compares him with them : 
Lovest thou me, — there is S. Peter on the one side — 7nore 
than these, — there are the Apostles on the other. And 
although all the Apostles were not present, yet the 
principal ones were, — S. James, S. John, S. Thomas 
and others. It is only S. Peter who is grieved, it is 
only S. Peter whose death is foretold. What room is 
there then for doubting that it was to him alone that 
this word feed my sheep is addressed, a word which is 
united to all these others ? 

Now that to feed the sheep includes the charge of 
them, appears clearly. For what is it to have the 
charge of feeding the sheep, but to be pastor and 
shepherd ; and shepherds have full charge of the sheep, 

* De Consid. ii. 8. 

ART. VI. 0. v.] The Rule of Faith. 261 

and not only lead them to pasture, but bring them 
back, fold them, guide them, rule them, keep them in 
fear, chastise them and guard them. In Scripture to 
rule and to feed the people is taken as the same 
thing, which is easy to see in Ezekiel (xxxiv.) ; in the 
second Book of Kings (v. 2) ; and in several places of 
the Psalms, where, according to the original there is 
to feed, and we have to rule: and in fact, between 
ruling and pasturing the sheep with iron crook there 
is no difference. In Psalm xxii., verse I, The Lord 
rideth me, i.e., as shepherd governeth me, and when it 
is said that David had been elected to feed Jacob his 
servant and Israel his inheritance : and he fed them in 
the innocence of his heart (Ps. Ixxvii. 71, 72), it is just 
the same as if he said to ride, to govern, to preside over. 
And it is after the same figure of speech that the 
peoples are called sheep of the 2^<^('Sture of Our Lord 
(Ps. xcix. 3), so that, to have the commandment of 
feeding the Christian sheep is no other thing than to 
be their ruler and pastor. 

It is now easy to see what authority Our Lord 
intru&ted to S. Peter by these words : Feed my sheep. 
For in truth the charge is so general that it includes 
all the faithful, whatever may be their condition ; the 
commandment is so particular that it is addressed only 
to S. Peter. He who wishes to have this honour of 
being one of Our Lord's sheep must acknowledge S. 
Peter, or him wlio takes Peter's place, as his shepherd. 
'' If thou lovest me " — I quote S. Bernard * — ''feed my 
sheep. Which sheep ? The people of this or that 
city or region or even kingdom ? My sheep, Christ 
says. Is it not clear to everybody that he did not 

* De Consid. ii 8. 

262 The Catholic Controversy, [part h. 

mean some, but handed over all. There is no excep- 
tion where there is no distinction. And perhaps the 
others, his fellow-disciples, were present when, giving 
a charge to one, he commended unity to all in one 
flock with one pastor, according to that (Cant, vi.) : 
One, is my dove, my heaittiful one, my perfect one. 
Where unity is there is perfection." 

When Our Lord said : I know my sheep, he spoke 
of all ; when he said feed my sheep, he still means it 
of all ; for Our Lord has but one fold and one flock. 
And what else is it to say : feed my slieep, but : Take 
care of my flock, of my pastures, or of my sheep and my 
sheepfold ? It is then entirely under the charge of S. 
Peter. For if he said to him : Feed my sheep, either 
he recommended all to him or some only ; if he only 
recommended some — which ? I ask. Were it not to 
recommend to him none, to recommend to him some 
only without specifying which, and to put him in 
charge of unknown sheep ? If all, as the Word 
expresses it, then he was the general pastor of the 
whole Church. And the matter is thus rightly settled 
beyond doubt. It is the common explanation of the 
Ancients, it is the execution of his promises. But 
lliere is a mystery in this institution which our S. 
Bernard does not allow me to forget, now that I have 
taken him as my guide in this point. It is that Our 
Saviour thrice charges him to do the office of pastor, 
saying to him first : Feed my lamhs ; secondly , my 
lamhs ; thirdly, my sheep : — not only to make this 
institution more solemn, but to show that he gave into 
his charge not only the people, but the pastors and 
Apostles themselves, who, as sheep, nourish the lambs 
and young sheep, and are mothers to them. 

ART. VI. c. v.] The Rule of Faith. 263 

And it makes nothing against this truth that S. 
Paul and the other Apostles have fed many peoples 
with the Gospel doctrine, for being all under the charge 
of S. Peter, what they have done belongs also to him, 
as the victory does to the general, though the captains 
have fought : nor, that S. Paul received from S. Peter 
the right hand of felloicshi;p (Gal. ii. 9), for they were 
companions in preaching, but S. Peter was greater and 
chief in the pastoral office ; and the chiefs call the 
soldiers and captains comrades. 

Nor that S. Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles 
and S. Peter of the Jews ; because it was not to divide 
the government of the Church, nor to hinder either 
the one or the other from convertinsj the Gentiles and 
the Jews indifferently, nor because the chief authority 
was not in the hands of one ; but it was to assign 
them the quarters where they were principally to 
labour in preaching, in order that each one attacking 
impiety in his own province the world might the 
sooner be filled with the sound of the Gospel. 

Nor that he would seem not to have known that the 
Gentiles were to belong to the fold of Our Lord, which 
was confided to him : for what he said to the good 
Cornelius : In truth I perceive that God is no respecter 
of persons ; hut in every nation he that feareth him and 
worketh justice is acceptable to him (Acts x.), is nothing 
different from what he had said before : Whosoever 
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall he saved (ii.), 
and the prophecy which he had explained : And in 
thy seed shall all the families of the earth he hlessed (iii-). 
He was only uncertain as to the time when the bring- 
ing back of the Gentiles was to begin, according to the 
holy Word of the Master : You shall he witnesses unto 

264 The Catholic Controversy, [part iu 

me in Jerusalem, and in all Jvdcea and Samaria, and 
even to the uttermost part of the earth (i.), and that of 
S. Paul : To you it behoved us to speak first the ivord 
of God^ hut seeing you reject it, loe turn to the Gentiles 
(xiii.), just as Our Lord had akeady opened the mind 
of the Apostles to the intelligence of the Scriptures 
when he said to them : Thus it behoved . . . that 
penance and remission of sins should be preached in his 
name among all nations, beginning with Jerusalem 
(Luke ult.). 

Nor that the Apostles instituted deacons without 
the command of S. Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles 
(vi.) ; for S. Peter's presence there sufficiently author- 
ised that act; besides, we do not deny that the 
Apostles had full powers of administration in the 
Church, under the pastoral authority of S. Peter. 
And our bishops, in union with the Holy See of Rome, 
ordain both deacons and priests without any special 

Nor that the Apostles sent Peter and John into 
Samaria (lb. viii.), for the people also sent Phinees, 
who was the High Priest, and their superior, to the chil- 
dren of Ruben and Gad (Jos. xxii.) ; and the centurion 
sent the chiefs and heads of the Jews, whom he con- 
sidered to be greater than himself (Luke vii.) ; and S. 
Peter being in the council, liimself consented to and 
authorised his own mission. 

Nor finally, that which is made so much of — that 
S. Paul ivithstood S. Peter to the face (Gal. ii.), for every 
one knows that it is permitted to the inferior to correct 
the greater and to admonish him with charity and 
submission when charity requires ; witness our S. 
Bernard in his books On Consideration ; and on this 

ART. VI. 0. VI.] The Rule of Faith, 265 

subject the great S. Gregory * says these all golden 
words : " He became the follower of his inferior, though 
before him in dignity ; so that he who was first in 
the high dignity of the Apostolate might be first in 



It is a thing very worthy of consideration in this 
matter that the Evangelists never name either all the 
Apostles or a part of them together without putting 
S. Peter ever at the very top, ever at the head of the 
band. This we cannot consider to be done accidentally ; 
for it is perpetually observed by the Evangelists ; and 
it is not four or five times that they are tlius named 
together, but very often. And besides, as to the other 
Apostles, they do not keep any particular order. 

The, names of the twelve Apostles are these, says S. 
Matthew (x.) : The first, Simo7i who is called Peter, 
and Andreio his brother ; James the son of Zehedee and 
John his brother ; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas 
and Mathew the publican, James of Alpheus and Thad- 
deus, Simon Chanancus, and Judas Tscariot. He names 
S. Andrew the 2d ; S. Mark names him the 4th ; 
and to better show that it makes no difference, S. Luke, 
who in one place has put him 2d, in another puts 
him 4th. S. Matthew puts S. John 4th ; S. Mark 

* In Ezech. ii. 6. 

266 The Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

puts him 3d ; S. Luke in one place 4th, in another 
2d. S. Matthew puts S. James 3d; S. Mark puts 
him 2d. In short, it is only S. Philip, S. James of 
Alpheus and Judas who are not sometimes higher, 
sometimes lower. When the Evangelists elsewhere 
name all the Apostles together there is no principle 
except as regards S. Peter, who goes first everywhere. 
Well now, let us imagine that we were to see in the 
country, in tlie streets, in meetings, what we read in 
the Gospels (and in truth it is more certain than if we 
had seen it) — if we saw S. Peter the first and all the 
rest grouped together,— should we not judge that the 
others were equals and companions, and S. Peter the 
chief and captain. 

But, besides this, very often when tlie Evangelists 
talk of the Apostolic company they name only Peter, 
and mention the others as accessory and following: 
And Simon and they who were with him followed after 
him (Mark i.) : BiU Peter and they that were with him 
were heavy with sleep (Luke ix.) You know well that 
to name one person and put the others all together 
with him, is to make him the most important and the 
others his inferiors. 

Very often again he is named separately from the 
others, as by the Angel : Tell his disciples and Peter 
(Mark xvi) : But Peter standing up, with the eleven 
. . . they said to Peter and the rest of the Ajjostles 
(Acts ii.) : Peter then answering and the Apostles said, 
Have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister, as 
well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the 
Lord and Cephas (i Cor. ix.) ? What does this 
mean, to say : Tell his disciples and Peter — Peter and 
the Apostles answered? Was Peter not an Apostle? 

ART. VI. 0. vl] The Rule of Faith, 267 

Either he was less or more than the others, or he 
was equal. No man, who is not altogether mad, 
will say he was less. If he is equal and stands 
on a level with the others, why is he put by himself ? 
If there is nothing particular in him, why is it not 
just as well to say : Tell his disciples and Andrew, or 
John ? Certainly it must be for some particular 
quality which is in him more than in the others, and 
because he was not a simple Apostle. So that hav- 
ing said : Tell his disciples, or, as the rest of the Apostles, 
how can one longer doubt that S. Peter is more than 
Apostle and disciple ? Only once in the Scriptures 
S. Peter is named after S. James, James and Cephas 
and John gave the right hands of felloiuship (Gal. ii.) 
But in truth there is too much occasion to doubt 
whether in the original and anciently S. Peter was 
named first or second, to allow any valid conclusion 
to be drawn from this place alone. For S. Augustine, 
S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, both in the commentary and 
in the text, have written Peter, James, John, which 
they could never have done if they had not found 
this same order in their copies : S. Chrysostom has 
done the same in the commentary. All this shows 
the diversity of copies, which makes the conclusion 
doubtful on either side. But even if the copies we 
now have were originals, one could deduce nothing 
from this single passage against the order of so many 
others ; for S. Paul might be keeping to the order of 
the time in which he received the hand of fellowship, 
or without concerning himself about the order might 
have written first the one which came first to his 

But S. Matthew shows us clearly what order there was 

268 The Catholic Controversy. [part. n. 

amongst the Apostles, that is, that one was first, and 
the remainder were equal without 2d or 3d. First, 
says he, Simon who is called Peter ; he does not say 
2d, Andrew, 3d, James, but goes on simply naming 
them, to let us know that provided S. Peter was 
first all the rest were in the same rank, and that 
amongst them there was no precedence. First, says 
he, Peter, and Andrew. From this is derived the name 
of Primacy. For if he were first [primus), his place 
was first, his rank first, and this quality of his was 

It is answered to this that if the Evangelists here 
named S. Peter the first, it was because he was the 
most advanced in age amongst the Apostles, or on 
account of some privilege which existed amongst them. 
But what is the worth of such a reason as this, I 
should like to know ? To say that S. Peter was the 
oldest of the society is to seek at hazard an excuse for 
obstinacy ; and the Scripture distinctly tells us he was 
not the earliest Apostle when it testifies that S. 
Andrew led him to Our Lord. The reasons are seen 
quite clearly in the Scripture, but because you are 
resolved to maintain the contrary, you go seeking 
about with your imagination on every side. Why say 
that S. Peter was the oldest, since it is a pure fancy 
which has no foundation in the Scripture, and is 
contrary to the Ancients ? Why not say rather that 
he was the one on whom Christ founded his Church, 
to whom he had given the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven, who was the confirmer of the brethren ? — for 
all this is in the Scripture. What you want to main- 
tain you do maintain ; whether it has a base in 
Scripture or not makes no difference. And as to the 

ARTvi. 0. VII.] The Rule of Faith. 269 

other privileges, let anybody go over them to me in 
order, and none will be found special to S. Peter but 
those which make him head of the Church. 



If I wanted to bring together here all that is to be 
found, I should make this proof as large as I want to 
make all the section, and without effort on my part. 
For that excellent theologian, Eobert Bellarmine, would 
put many things into my hands. But particularly has 
Doctor Nicholas Sanders treated this subject so solidly 
and so amply that it is hard to say anything about it 
which he has not said or written in his books On the 
Visible Monarchy, I will give some extracts. 

Whoever will read the Scriptures attentively will 
see this Primacy of S. Peter everywhere. If the 
Church is compared to a building, as it is, its rock 
and its secondary foundation is S. Peter (Matt. xvi.). 

If you say it is like a family, it is only Our Lord 
who pays tribute as head of the household, and after 
him S. Peter as his lieutenant (lb. xvii.). 

If to a ship, S. Peter is its captain, and in it Our 
Lord teaches (Luke v.). 

If to a fishery, S. Peter is the first in it ; the true 
disciples of Our Lord fish only with him (lb. and 
John xxi.). 

270 The Catholic Controversy. [part w. 

If to draw-nets (Matt, xiii.), it is S. Peter who casts 
them into the sea, S. Peter who draws them ; the other 
disciples are his coadjutors. It is S. Peter who brings 
them to land and presents the fish to Our Lord 
(Luke v., John xxi.). 

Do you say it is like an embassy ? — S. Peter is 
first ambassador (Matt. x.). 

Do you say it is a brotherhood ? — S. Peter is first, 
the governor and confirmer of the rest (Luke xxii.). 

Would you rather have it a kingdom ? — S. Peter 
receives its keys (Matt. xvi.). 

Will you consider it a flock or fold of sheep and 
Iambs ? — S. Peter is its pastor and shepherd-general 
(John xxi.). 

Say now in conscience, how could Our Lord testify 
his intention more distinctly. Perversity cannot find 
use for its eyes amid such light. S, Andrew came the 
first to follow Our Lord ; and it was he who brought 
his brother, S. Peter, and S. Peter precedes him every- 
where. What does this signify except that the advan- 
tage one had in time the other had in dignity ? 

But let us continue. When Our Lord ascends to 
heaven, all the holy Apostolic body goes to S. Peter, 
as to the common father of the family (Acts i.). 

S. Peter rises up amongst them and speaks the first, 
and teaches the interpretation of weighty prophecy (lb.). 

He has the first care of the restoration and increase 
of the Apostolic college (lb.). It is he who first pro- 
posed to make an Apostle, which is no act of light 
authority ; for the Apostles have all had successors, 
and by death have not lost their dignity. But S. 
Peter teaching the Church shows both that Judas had 
lost his Apostolate and that another was needed in hia 

ART. VI. c. VII.] The Rule of Faith. 271 

place, contrary to the ordinary course of this authority, 
which in the others continues after death, and which 
they will even exercise on the Day of Judgment, when 
they shall be seated around the Judge, judging the 
twelve tribes of Israel. 

The Apostles have no sooner received the Holy 
Ghost than S. Peter, as chief of the Evangelic Embassy, 
being with his eleven companions, begins to publish, 
according to his office, the holy tidings of salvation to 
the Jews in Jerusalem. He is the first catechist of 
the Church, and preacher of penance ; the others are 
with him and are all asked questions, but S. Peter 
alone answers for all as chief of all (Acts ii.). 

If a hand is to be put into the treasury of miracles 
confided to the Church, though S. John is present and 
is asked, S. Peter alone puts in his hand (lb. iii.). 

When the time comes for beginning the use of the 
spiritual sword of the Church, to punish a lie, it is S. 
Peter who directs the first blow upon Ananias and 
Saphira (lb. v.) : from this springs the hatred which 
lying heretics bear against his See and succession ; 
because, as S. Gregory says,^ " Peter by his word strikes 
liars dead." 

He is the first who recognises and refutes heresy in 
Simon Magus (lb. viii.) : hence conies the irreconcile- 
able hatred of all heretics against his See. 

He is the first who raises the dead, when he prays 
for the devout Tabitha (lb. ix.). 

When it is time to put the sickle into the harvest 
of paganism, it is S. Peter to whom the revelation is 
made, as to the head of all the labourers, and the 
steward of the farmstead (lb. x.). 
* In Ezech. ii. i8. 

272 The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 

The good Italian centurion, Cornelius, is ready to 
receive grace of the Gospel; he is sent to S. Peter, 
that the Gentiles may by his hands be blessed and 
consecrated : he is the first in commanding the pagans 
to be baptized (Acts x.). 

When a General Council is sitting, S. Peter as 
president therein opens the gate to judgment and 
definition ; and his sentence [is] followed by the rest, 
his private revelation becomes a law (lb. xv.). 

S. Paul declares that he went to Jerusalem ex- 
pressly to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days 
(Gal i.). He saw S. James there, but to see him was 
not what he went for, — only to see S. Peter. What 
does this signify ? Why did he not go as much to 
see the great and most celebrated Apostle S. James 
as to see S. Peter ? Because we look at people in their 
head and face, and S. Peter was the head of all the 

When S. Peter and S. James were in prison the 
Evangelist testifies that grayer was made luitlwut cease- 
ing ly the Church to God for S. Peter, as for the general 
head and common ruler (Acts xii.). 

If all this put together does not make you acknow- 
ledge S. Peter to be head of the Church and of the 
Apostles, I confess that Apostles are not Apostles, 
pastors not pastors, and doctors not doctors. For in 
what other more express words could be made known 
the authority of an Apostle and pastor over the people 
than those which the Holy Ghost has placed in the 
Scriptures to show that S. Peter was above Apostles, 
pastors, and the whole Church ? 

^RT. VI. c. VIII.] The Rtile of Faith. 273 



It is true that Scripture suffices, but let us see who 
wrests it and violates it. If we were the first to 
draw conclusions in favour of the Primacy of S. Peter, 
one mio^ht think that we were wrestine? it. But how 
do things stand ? It is most clear on the point, and 
has been understood in this sense by all the primitive 
Church. Those, then, force it who bring in a new 
sense, who gloss it against the natural meaning of the 
words, and against the sense of Antiquity. If this be 
lawful for everybody, the Scripture will no longer be 
anything but a toy for fanciful and perverse wits. 

What is the meaning of this — that the Church has 
never held as patriarchal sees any but those of Alex- 
andria, of Eome, and of Antioch ? One may invent a 
thousand fancies, but there is no other reason than 
that which S. Leo produces : ^ — because S. Peter 
founded these three sees they have been called and 
esteemed patriarchal, as testify the Council of Nice, 
and that of Chalcedon, in which a great difference is 
made between these three sees and the others. As for 
those of Constantinople and Jerusalem, the above- 
named Councils show how differently they are con- 
sidered from those three others founded by S. Peter. 

Not that the Council of Nice speaks of the see of 
Constantinople ; for Constantinople was of no import- 
ance at all at that time, having only been built by the 

* Ad Anat. 

2 74 ^'^^ Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

great Constantine, who dedicated and named it in the 
twenty-fifth year of his Empire : but the Council of 
Nice treats of the see of Jerusalem, and that of 
Chalcedon of the see of Constantinople. 

By the precedence and pre-eminence of these three 
sees, the ancient Church testified sufficiently that she 
held S. Peter for her chief, who had founded them. 
Otherwise why did she not place also in the same 
rank the see of Ephesus, founded by S. Paul, confirmed 
and assured by S. John ; or the see of Jerusalem, in 
which S. James had conversed and presided ? 

What else did she testify, when in the public and 
patent letters which they anciently called formatce, 
after the first letter of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, there was put the first letter of Peter, except 
that after Almighty God, who is the absolute King, 
the lieutenant's authority is in great esteem with all 
those who are good Christians ? 

As for the consent of the Fathers concerninsf this 
point, Surius, Sanders, and a thousand others have 
taken away from posterity all occasion of doubting it. 
I will only bring forward the names by which the 
Fathers have called him, which sufficiently show their 
belief concerning his authority. 

Optatus of Milevis called him " the head of the 
Churches" (Contra Parm. ii.). They have called him 
" Head of the Church," as S. Jerome (adv. Jov. i.), 
and S. Chrysostom (Hom. 1 1 in Matt.). " Happy 
foundation of the Church," as S. Hilary (in Matt, xvi.), 
and " Janitor of heaven, the first of the Apostles," as 
S. Augustine (in J. 5 6) after S. Matthew. " Mouth 
and crown of the Apostles," as Origen (in Luc. xvii.), 
and S. Chrysostom (in Matt. 55). " Mouth and 

ART. VI. c. VIII.] The Rule of Faith. 275 

prince of the Apostles/' as the same S. Chrysostom 
(in J. 87). " Guardian of the brethren, and of the 
whole world " (lb. ult.). " Pastor of the Church and 
head stronger than adamant" (Id. in Matt. 55). 
" The immovable rock, immovable pedestal, the 
great Apostle, first of the disciples; first called and 
first obeying " (Id. in Poen. 3). " Firmament of the 
Church, leader and master of Christians, column of 
the spiritual Israel, guardian of the feeble, master of 
the heavens, mouth of Christ, supreme head of the 
Apostles " (Id. in ador. eaten, et glad. Apost. princ. 
Petri). " Prince of the Church, port of faith, master 
of the world " (Id. in SS. P. et P. et Eliam). "First 
in the supremacy of the Apostolate " (Greg, in Ezech. 
xviii.). " High Priest of Christians " (Euseb. in Chron. 
44). "Master of the army of God" (Id. Hist, 
ii. 1 4). " Set over the other disciples " (Bas. de 
Judic. Dei 9). " President of the world " (Chrys. in 
Matt. II). " The Lord of the house of God, and 
prince of all his possession" (P)ern. Ep. 137, ad 

Who shall dare to oppose this company ? Thus 
they speak, thus they understand the Scripture, and 
according to it do they hold that all these names and 
titles are due to S. Peter. 

The Church then was left on earth by her Master 
and Spouse with a visible chief and lieutenant of the 
Master and Lord. The Church is therefore to be 
always united together in a visible chief-minister 
of Christ. 

276 The CatJiolic Controversy, [part n. 



I HAVE clearly proved so far that the Catholic Church 
was a monarchy in which Christ's head -minister 
governed all the rest. It was not then S. Peter only 
who was its head, but, as the Church has not failed 
by the death of S. Peter, so the authority of a head 
has not failed ; otherwise it would not be one, nor 
would it be in the state in which its founder had 
placed it. And in truth all the reasons for which 
Our Lord put a head to this body, do not so much 
require that it should be there in that beginning 
when the Apostles who governed the Church were 
holy, humble, charitable, lovers of unity and concord, 
as in the progress and continuation thereof, when 
charity having now grown cold each one loves himself, 
no one will obey the word of another nor submit to 

I ask you : — if the Apostles, whose understanding 
the Holy Spirit enlightened so immediately, who were 
so steadfast and so strong, needed a confirm er and 
pastor as the form (forme) and visible maintenance of 
their union, and of the union of the Church, how 
much more now has the Church need of one, when 
there are so many infirmities and weaknesses in the 
members of the Church ? And if the wills of the 
Apostles, so closely united in charity, had need of an 
exserior bond in the authority of a head, how much 

ART. VI. c. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 277 

more afterwards when charity has grown so cold is 
there need of a visible authority and ruler ? And if, 
as S. Jerome says, in the time of the Apostles : " One 
is chosen from amongst all, in order that, a head being 
established, occasion of schism may be taken away," * 
how much more now, for the same reason, must there 
be a chief in the Church ? The fold of Our Lord is to 
last till the consummation of the world, in visible 
unity : the unity then of external government must 
remain in it, and nobody has authority to change the 
form of administration save Our Lord who estab- 
lished it.t 

All this has been well proven above, and it follows 
therefrom that S. Peter has had successors, has them 
in these days, and will have them even to the end of 
the ages. 

I do not profess here to treat difficulties to the very 
bottom. It is enough for my purpose to indicate some 
principal reasons and to expose our belief precisely. 
Indeed, if I were to take notice of the objections which 
are made on this point, while I should find small 
difficulty I should have great trouble, and most of 
them are so slight that they are not worth losing time 
over. Let us see what conditions are required for 
succeeding to an office. 

There can only be succession to one who, whether 
by deposition or by death, gives up and leaves his 
place ; whence Our Lord is always head and sovereign 
Pontiff of the Church, to whom no one succeeds, 
because he is always living, and has never resigned 
or quitted this priesthood [or] pontificate ; though here 
below, in the Church militant, he partly exercises it 

* Adv. Jov. i. 26. t See Preface. 

278 The Catholic Controversy. [part 11. 

by his ministers and servants, his authority, how- 
ever, being too excellent to be altogether communi- 
cated. But these ministers and representatives, as 
many pastors as ever there are, can give up and do 
give up, either by deposition or by death, their offices 
and dii^nities. 

Now we have shown that S. Peter was head of the 
Church as prime minister of Christ, and that this office 
or dignity was not conferred on him for himself alone, 
but for the good and profit of the whole Church ; so 
that Christianity being always to endure, this same 
charge and authority must be perpetual in the Church 
militant : — but how would it be perpetual if S. Peter 
had no successor ? For there can be no doubt that 
S. Peter is pastor no longer, since he is no longer in 
the Church militant, nor is he even a visible man, 
which is a condition requisite for administration in 
tlie visible Church. 

It remains to learn how he made this quittance, 
how he left this pontificate of his ; — whether it was 
by laying it down during his life or by natural death. 
Then we will see who succeeded him and by what 

And on the one hand nobody doubts that S. Peter 
continued in his charge all his life. For those words 
of Our Lord : Feed my sheep, were to him not only 
an institution into this supreme pastoral charge, but 
an absolute commandment, which had no other 
limitation than the end of his life, any more than 
that other : Preach the Gospel to every creature^ which 
the Apostles laboured in until death. Whilst there- 
fore S. Peter lived this mortal life, he had no suc- 

* Mark nil. 

ART. VI. c. IX,] The Rule of Faith. 279 

cesser, — he did not lay down his charge, and was 
not deposed from it. For he could not be so (except 
by heresy, which never had access to the Apostles, 
least of all to their head) unless the Master of the 
fold had removed him, which was not done. 

It was death then which removed him from this 
guard and general watch which he was keeping as 
ordinary pastor over the whole sheepfold of his 
Master. But who succeeded in his place ? As to 
this, all antiquity agrees that it was the Bishop of 
Rome, for this reason that S. Peter died Bishop of 
Rome — therefore the diocese of Rome was the last 
seat of the head of the Church : therefore the Bishop 
of Rome who came after the death of S. Peter, suc- 
ceeded to the head of the Church, and consequently 
was head of the Church. Some one might say 
that he succeeded the head of the Church as to the 
bishopric of Rome, but not as to the kingship of the 
world. But such a one must show that S. Peter had 
two sees, of which the one was for Rome, the other 
for the universe, which was not the case. It is true 
that he had a seat at Antioch, but he who held it 
after him had not the Vicar-generalship, because S. 
Peter lived long afterwards, and had not laid down 
that charge ; but having chosen Rome for his see he 
died Bishop thereof, and he who succeeded him, 
succeeded him simply, and sat in his seat, which was 
the general seat over the whole world, and over the 
bishopric of Rome in particular. Hence, the Bishop 
of Rome remained general lieutenant in the Church, 
and successor of S. Peter. This I am now about to 
prove so solidly that only the obstinate will be able 
to doubt it. 

2 8o The Catholic Controversy. [parth 



I HAVE presupposed that S. Peter was Bishop of 
Eome and died such. This the opposite party 
deny ; many of them even deny that he ever was 
at Eome ; but I am not obliged to attack all these 
negatives in detail, because when I shall have fully 
proved that S. Peter was and died Bishop of Eome, 
I shall have sufficiently proved that the Bishop of 
Eome is the successor of S. Peter. Besides, all my 
proofs and my witnesses state in express terms that 
the Bishop of Eome succeeded to S. Peter, which is my 
contention, and from which again will follow a clear 
certainty that S. Peter was at Eome and died there. 

And now here is my first witness, — S. Clement, 
disciple of S. Peter, in the first letter which he wrote 
to James, the brother of the Lord ; which is so 
authentic that Eufinus became the translator of it 
about twelve hundred years ago. Now he says these 
words : " Simon Peter, the chief apostle, brought the 
King of ages to the knowledge of the city of Eome, 
that it also might be saved. He being inspired with 
a fatherly affection, taking my hand in the assembly 
of the brethren, said : I ordain this Clement, Bishop, 
to whom alone I commit the chair of my preaching 
and doctrine." And a little further on: "to him I 
deliver the power of binding and loosing which was 
delivered to me by the Lord." And as to the 
authority of this epistle, Damasus in the Pontifical, 

ART. vi. 0. X.] The Rule of Faith. 281 

in the life of Clement, speaks of it thus : " In the 
letter which was written to James you will find how 
to Clement was the Church committed by Blessed 
Peter." And Eufinus, in the preface to the book 
of the Recognitions of S. Clement, speaks of it with 
great honour, and says that he had turned it into 
Latin, and that S. Clement bore witness in it to his 
own institution, and said " that S. Peter had left him 
as successor in his chair." This testimony shows us 
both that S. Peter preached at Rome and that he was 
Bishop there. For if he had not been Bishop how 
would he have delivered to S. Clement a chair which 
he would not have held there ? 

The second, S. Irenseus (iii. 3) : " To the greatest 
and oldest and most famous Church, founded by the 
two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul." And a 
little further on : " The blessed Apostles therefore, 
founding and instituting the Church, delivered to Linus 
the office of administering it as Bishop ; to him suc- 
ceeded Anacletus ; after him, in the third place from 
the Apostles, Clement receives the episcopate. 

The third, Tertullian (de Pr. xxxii.) : " The Church 
also of the Romans publishes," — that is, shows by 
public instruments and proofs — " that Clement was 
ordained by Peter." And in the same book (xxxvi.) : 
" Happy Church, into which the Apostles poured with 
their blood their whole doctrine ! " — and he speaks 
of the Roman Church, " where Peter's passion is 
made like to the Lord's." Whereby you see that S. 
Peter died at Rome and instituted S. Clement there. 
So that joining this testimony to the others, it is 
seen that he was Bishop there and died teaching 

282 The Catholic Controversy, (pakth. 

The fourth, S. Cyprian (Ep. 55, ad Corn.) : "They 
dare to sail off to the chair of Peter, and to the head 
Church, whence the sacerdotal unity has come forth ; " 
— and he is speaking of the Eoman Church. 

Eusebius (Cliron. ann. 44): "Peter, by nation a 
Galilsean, the first pontiff of Christians, having first 
founded the Church of Antioch, proceeds to Eome, 
where, preaching the Gospel, he continues twenty-five 
years bishop of the same city." 

Epiphanius (ii. 27) : "The succession of bishops at 
Eome is in this order ; Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, 
Clement, &c." 

Dorotheus (in Syn.) : " Linus was Bishop of Eome 
after the first ruler, Peter." 

Optatus of Mile vis (de Sch Don.) : " You cannot 
deny that you know that in the city of Eome the 
episcopal chair was first intrusted to Peter, in which 
Peter, head of all the Apostles, sat." And a little 
further on : " Peter sat first, to whom succeeded Linus, 
to Linus succeeded Clement." 

S. Jerome (ad Dam.) : " With the successor of the 
fisherman and the disciple of the cross do I treat : I 
am united in communion with thy Blessedness, in the 
chair of Peter." 

S. Augustine (Ep. 53, ad Gen.): "To Peter suc- 
ceeded Linus, to Linus Clement." 

In the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon (Act. 
iii.), when the legates of the Holy See would deliver 
sentence against Dioscorus, tliey speak in this fashion : 
" Wherefore, most holy and blessed Leo, of the great and 
older Eome, by us and by the present holy synod, 
together with the thrice blessed and ever to be praised 
Apostle Peter, who is the rock and the foundation of 

ART. VI. ex.] The Rule of Faith. 283 

the Catholic Church, has stripped him of the episcopal 
dignity and also ejected him from the priestly ministry." 
Give a little attention to these particulars ; that the 
Bishop of Eome alone deprives him, by his legates 
and by the Council; that they unite the Bishop of 
Eome with S. Peter. For such things show that the 
Bishop of Eome holds the place of S. Peter. 

The Synod of Alexandria, at which Athanasius was 
present, in its letter to Felix II., uses remarkable 
words on this point, and amongst other things, relates 
that in the Council of Nice it had been determined 
that it was not lawful to celebrate any Council without 
the consent of the Holy See of Eome, but that the 
canons which had been made to that effect had been 
burnt by the Arian heretics. And in fact, Julius I., 
in the Rescript against the Orientals in Favour of 
Athanasius (cc. 2, 3), cites two canons of the Council 
of Mce which relate to this matter, — which work of 
Julius I. has been cited by Gratian, four hundred years 
ago, and by Isidore nine hundred : and the great Father, 
Vincent of Lerius, makes mention of it a thousand years 
back. I say this because all the canons of Nice are 
not in existence, only twenty remaining : but so many 
grave authors cite others beyond the twenty, that we 
are obliged to believe what is said by those good 
Fathers of Alexandria above-named, that the Arians 
have got the greater part destroyed. 

For God's sake let us cast our eyes on that most 
ancient and pure Church of the first six centuries, and 
regard it from all sides. And if we find it firmly 
believes that the Pope was successor of S. Peter, what 
rashness will it be to deny it ? 

This, methinks, is a reason which asks no credit. 

284 T^^^ Catholic Controversy. lpartil 

but pays in good coin. S. Peter has had successors in 
his vicarship : and who has ever in the ancient Church 
had the reputation of being successor of S. Peter, and 
head of the Church, except the Bishop of Kome ? In 
truth all ancient authors, whosoever they be, all give 
this title to the Pope, and never to others. 

And how then shall we say it does not belong to 
him ? Truly it were to deny the known truth. Or 
let them tell us what other bishop is the head of the 
Church, and successor of S. Peter. At the Council of 
Nice, at those of Constantinople and Chalcedon, it is 
not seen that any bishop usurps the primacy for him- 
self : it is attributed, according to ancient custom, to 
the Pope ; no other is named in equal degree. In 
short, never was it said, either certainly or doubtfully, 
of any bishop in the first five hundred years that he 
was head or superior over the rest, except of the 
Bishop of Eome ; about him indeed it was never 
doubted, but was held as settled that he was such. 
On what ground, then, after fifteen hundred years 
passed, would one cast doubt on this ancient tradition ? 
I should never end were I to try to catalogue all 
the assurances and repetitions of this truth which we 
have in the Ancients' writings : but this will suffice 
just now to prove that the Bishop of Eome is the 
successor of S. Peter, and that S. Peter was and died 
Bishop at Eome. 

ABT. VI. c. XL] The Rule of Faith. 285 



There is no question which the ministers fight over so 
pertinacioiisly as this. For they try by force of con- 
jectures, presumptions, dilemmas, explanations, and by 
every means, to prove that S. Peter was never at 
Eome : — except Calvin, who, seeing that this was to 
belie all antiquity, and that it was not needed for his 
opinion, contents himself with saying that at least S. 
Peter was not long Bishop at Rome : " On account of 
the consent of writers, I do not dispute that he was at 
Eome. But that he was bishop, especially for a long 
time, I cannot admit." But in truth, though he were 
Bishop of Eome for but a very short time, if he died 
there he left there his chair and his succession. So 
that as to Calvin we should not have great cause for 
discussion, provided that he was resolved to acknow- 
ledge sincerely that S. Peter died at Eome, and that 
he was bishop there when he died. And as to tha 
others we have sufficiently proved above that S. Peter 
died Bishop of Eome. 

The statements which are made to the contrary are 
more captious than hard to resolve; and because he 
who shall have the true account of the life of S. Peter 
before his eyes will have enough answer for all the 
objections, I will briefly say what I think the more 
probable, in which I will follow the opinion of that 
excellent theologian, Gilbert Genebrard, Archbishop of 
Aix, in his Chronology^ and of Eobert Bellarmine, 

286 The Catholic Controversy. [part n. 

Jesuit, in his Controversies, who closely follow S. 
Jerome, and Eusebius in Chronico. 

Our Lord then ascended into heaven in the eighteenth 
year of Tiberius, and commanded his Apostles to 
stay in Jerusalem twelve years, according to the 
ancient tradition of Thraseas, martyr, not all indeed 
but some of them (to verify the word spoken by 
Isaias,* and as SS. Paul and Barnabas seem to imply t), 
for S. Peter was in Lydda and in Joppa before the 
twelve years had expired : — it was enough that some 
Apostles should remain in Judsea as witnesses to the 
Jews. S. Peter then remained in Judaea about five 
years after the Ascension, preaching and announcing 
the Gospel, and at the end of the first year, or soon 
afterwards, S. Paul was converted, who after three 
years went to Jerusalem to see Peter, | with whom he 
stayed fifteen days. S. Peter then having preached 
about five years in Judaea, towards the end of the 
fifth year went to Antioch, where he remained Bishop 
about seven years, that is, till the second year of 
Claudius, but meanwhile making evangelic journeys 
into Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia, and elsewhere, for the 
conversion of the nations. From thence, having com- 
mitted his episcopal charge to the good Evodius, he 
returned to Jerusalem, on his arrival in which place 
he was imprisoned by Herod to please the Jews § about 
the time of the Passover. But escaping from the 
prison soon afterwards under the direction of the 
angel, he came, that same year, which was the second 
of Claudius, to Eome, where he established his chair, 
which he held about twenty-five years, during which 
he did not omit to visit various provinces, according 

* Ixv. t Acts xiii. 46. X Gal. i. 18. § Acts xii, 6, 

ART. VT. c. XI.] The Rule of Faith. 287 

to the necessity of the Christian commonwealth ; but 
amongst other things, about the eighteenth year of the 
Passion and Ascension of the Saviour, which was the 
ninth of Claudius, he was driven with the rest of the 
Hebrews from Eome, and went away to Jerusalem, 
where the Council of Jerusalem was celebrated, in 
which S. Peter presided. Then Claudius being dead, 
S. Peter returned to Eome, taking up again his first 
work of teaching and of visiting from time to time 
various provinces, where at last Nero, having im- 
prisoned him for death, with S. Paul his companion, 
Peter, yielding to the holy importunities of the faithful, 
was about to make his escape and get out of the city 
by night, when meeting Our Saviour by the gate 
he said to him : Domine quo vaclis ? — Lord, whither 
goest thou ? He answered : I go to Eome to be 
crucified anew : * an answer which S. Peter well 
knew pointed towards his cross. So that, after having 
been about five years in Judaea, seven years in Antioch, 
twenty-five years at Eome, in the fourteenth year of 
Nero's empire he was crucified, head downwards, and 
on the same day S. Paul had his head cut off. 

But before dying, taking by the hand his dis- 
ciple S. Clement, S. Peter appointed him his suc- 
cessor, an office which S. Clement would not accept 
nor exercise till after the death of Linus and of 
Cletus, who had been coadjutors of S. Peter in the 
administration of the Eoman bishopric. So that to 
him who would know why some authors place S. 
Clement first in order after S. Peter, and others S. 
Linus, I will make him an answer by S. Epiphanius, 

* Amb. contra Aiix. ; Origen iu Gen. iii ; Athan. pro fugd ; Jeroma 
de Vir. ill. ; Eusebius in Chron ; Ado j Tertull. de ^rcescr. 

288 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

an author worthy of credit, whose words are these : * 
" Let no man wonder that Linus and Cletus took up 
the episcopate before S. Clement, he being a disciple 
of the Apostles, contemporary with Peter and Paul ; 
for they also were contemporaries of the Apostles ; 
whether therefore whilst they were alive he received 
from Peter the imposition of the hands of the episco- 
pate, and refusing the office waited, or, after the 
departure of the Apostles was appointed by the bishop 
Cletus, we do not clearly know." 

Because therefore S. Clement had been chosen by S. 
Peter, as he himself testifies, and yet would not accept 
the charge before the death of Linus and Cletus, 
some, in consideration of the election made by S. 
Peter, place him the first in order, others, looking at 
the refusal he gave and at his leaving the exercise of 
it to Linus and Cletus, place him the fourth. 

Besides, S. Epiphanius may have had reason to 
doubt about the election of S. Clement made by S. 
Peter, for want of having had sufficient proofs ; while 
possibly Tertnllian, Damasus, Eufinus, and others 
may have had means of ascertaining the truth ; and 
this may be the reason why S. Epiphanius speaks thus 
indecisively. Tertullian, who was more ancient, states 
positively : " The Church of the Eomans publishes 
that Clement was ordained by Peter," that is, proves 
by documents and public acts. As for myself I prefer, 
and reasonably, to place myself on the side of those 
who are certain ; because he who doubts what a man 
of probity and sense distinctly certifies contradicts the 
speaker; on the contrary, to be sure of that which 
another doubts about is simply to imply that the 

* Hser. 27. 

ART. VI. c. XL] The Rule of Faith. 289 

doubter does not know all, as indeed he has first con- 
fessed himself, by doubting, — for doubting is nothing 
but not certainly knowing the truth of a thing. 

And now, having seen by this short account of the 
life of S. Peter, which bears every mark of probability, 
that S. Peter did not always stay in Eome, but, having 
his chair there, did not omit to visit many provinces, 
to return to Jerusalem and to fulfil the apostolic ofiice, 
all those frivolous reasons which are drawn from the 
negative authority of the Epistle of S. Paul will no 
longer have entrance into your judgments. For if 
it be said that S. Paul, writing to Eome and from 
Eome, has made no mention of S. Peter, we need not 
be surprised, for, perhaps, he was not there at that 

So, it is quite oertain that the First Epistle of S. 
Peter was written from Eome, as S. Jerome witnesses : * 
"Peter," says he, "in his first Epistle, figuratively 
signifying Eome under the name of Babylon, says : 
" The Church which is in Babylon, elected together, saluteth 
you." This that most ancient man Papias, a disciple 
of the Apostles, had previously attested, as Eusebius 
records. But would this consequence be good — S. 
Peter, in that Epistle, gives no sign that S. Paul was 
with him, therefore Paul was never in Eome ? This 
Epistle does not contain everything, and if it does not 
say that he was there, it also does not say that he 
was not. It is probable that he was not there then, 
or that if he were it was not expedient to name him 
in that place for some reason. I say the same of S. 
Paul's letter. 

Lastly, to adjust the times of the life of S. Peter to 


* De Vir. III. 


290 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

the reigns of Tiberius, Caius Caligula, and Nero, we 
can lay them out something in this fashion. In the 
eighteenth year of Tiberius, Our Lord ascended into 
heaven, and Tiberius survived Our Lord in this world 
about six years ; five years after the Ascension, in the 
last year of the Empire of Tiberius, S. Peter came to 
Antioch, where having stayed about seven years — that 
is, what remained of Tiberius, four years of Caius 
Caligula, and two of Claudius — towards the end of the 
second of Claudius he came to Eome, where he re- 
mained seven years, that is, till the ninth of Claudius, 
when the Jews were driven out of Eome, which caused 
S. Peter to withdraw into Judsea. About five years 
afterwards, Claudius being dead in the fourteenth 
year of his reign, S. Peter returned to Eome, where 
he stayed till the fourteenth and last year of Nero. 
This makes about thirty-seven years that S. Peter 
lived after the death of his Master, of which he lived 
twelve partly in Judaea partly in Antioch, and twenty- 
five he lived as Bishop of Eome. 



Hear in few words what the Ancients thought of 
this matter, and in what rank they held the Bishop 
of Eome. This is the way they speak, whether of the 
See of Eome and its Church, whether of the Pope: 
for all comes to the same. 

ART. VI. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith. 


Chair of Peter .... 

Principal Church .... 
Commencement of sacerdotal unity 
Bond of unity : sublime summit of 

the priesthood 
Church in which is the superior 

authority .... 
Root and matrix of the Church 
Seat on -which our Lord established 

the whole Church 
Hinge and head of all Churches 

Eefuge of bishops . 

Supreme Apostolic seat . 
Head of the pastoral honour . 
Supremacy of the Apostolic chair 

Principal dignity of the Apostolic 
priesthood .... 

Head of all Churches 

Head of the world, of the universe 
by religion .... 

Set over the rest of the Churches 

The presiding Church . 

The first see to be judged by no one 

First seat of all . . . 

Most safe harbour of Catholic com 
munion .... 

Apostolic fountain . 

Thus do they name the 
how they style the Pope. 

Bishop of the most holy Catholic 

Most holy and most blessed Patri- 

{ Cyp. Lib. i., Ep. 3 [Editio 
/ Erasmi]. 

lb. 55 [ad Corn.] 

lb. iii. 13. 

lb. iv. 2. 

Iren. iii. 3. 

Cyp. iv. 8. 

Anac. Ep. i, ad omnes Episc, 

lb. 3. 

Marcellus, Ep. i, ad Episc. 

Antic ch. 
Syn. Alex. Ep. ad Pel. ubi Ath. 
Prosper de Ingratis [lin. 40]. 
Aug. Ep, 162 [Migne 43]. 
Prosper de Voc. Gen. ii. 16. In 

prsef. Cone. Chal. ; Valent, 

Victor Ut. de persec. Van. ii. ; 

Justinianus de summa Trin. 
Leo M. in Nat. SS. P. et P. ; 

Prosper de Ingratis. 
Syn. Rom. sub Gelasio. 
Ign. ad Rom. in inscriptione. 
Syn. Sinuessana 300 Episc. 
Leo Ep. 61 [ad Theod.] 

I Hieron. Ep. 16. 

I Innoc. ad Patres Milev. inter 
< Epist. S. Auf. 93 [Migne 
( 182]. 

Eoman Church ; now see 

I Cyp. iii. II. 
Cone. Chalc. , Act iii. 

This passage is from S. Siricius, Ep. i, ad Himer. [Tr.] 


The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

Head of the Council of Chalcedon . 

Head of the Universal Church 

Most blessed Lord ; elevated to 
the Apostolic Dignity ; father of 
fathers ; supreme pontiff of all 

High Priest 

Prince of Priests . , . . < 

Ruler of the house of the Lord 

Guardian of the Lord's vineyard . 

Vicar of Christ .... 

Confirmer of the brethren 

Great priest ; supreme pontiff ;'^ 
prince of bishops ; heir of the 
Apostles ; Abel in primacy ; Noe 
in government; Abraham in pat- 
riarchate ; Melchisedech in order ; 
Aaron in dignity ; Moses in au 
thority ; Samuel in judgment ; 
Peter in authority ; Christ in 
unction ; shepherd of the Lord's 
fold ; key-bearer of the Lord's 
house ; shepherd of all shepherds ; 
called in plenitude of power. / 

In relatione. 
Ibid. xvi. 

Steph. Episc. Carthag. in Ep. 
ad Damas. nomine Cono. 

Hieron. Prsef. Evang. ad Dam. 
Id testatur tota antiq. apud 

Valent. ep. ad Theodos. 

initio. Cone. Chalc. 
Amb. in i Tim. iii. 
Cone. Chalc. ep. ad Leon. 

Cy. i. 3. 
Bern. Ep. 190. 

. ) lb. de Consid. 11. 8. 

I should never end if I tried to heap together all 
the titles which the Ancients have given to the 
Holy See of Eome and to its Bishop. The above 
ought to suffice to make even the most perverse wits 
see the extravagant lie which Beza continues to tell 
after his master Calvin, in his treatise On the Marks 
of the Church, where he says that Phocas was the 
first to give authority to the Bishop of Eome over 
the rest, and to place him in Primacy. 

What is the use of uttering so gross a lie ? Phocas 
lived in the time of S. Gregory the Great, and every 
one of the authors I have cited is earlier than S. 

ART. VI. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith. 293 

Gregory, except S. Bernard, whom I have quoted, from 
his books On Consideration, because Calvin holds these 
so true that he considers truth itself has spoken in 

It is objected that S. Gregory would not let 
himself be called Universal Bishop. But universal 
Bishop may be understood of one who is in such sort 
bishop of the universe that the other bishops are only 
vicars and substitutes, — which is not the case. For 
the bishops are truly spiritual princes, chiefs and 
pastors ; not lieutenants of the Pope, but of Our Lord, 
who therefore calls them brethren. Or the word may 
be understood of one who is superintendent over all, 
and in regard of whom all the others who are super- 
intendents in particular are inferiors indeed but not 
vicars or substitutes. And it is in this sense that the 
Ancients have called him Universal Bishop, while 
S. Gregory denies it in the other sense. 

They object the Council of Carthage, which forbids 
that any one shall call himself Prince of Priests ; 
but it is for want of something to go on with that 
they put this in : — for who is ignorant that this was 
a provincial Council affecting the bishops of that Pro- 
vince, in which the Bishop of Eome was not; — the 
Mediterranean Sea lies between them. 

There remained the name of Pope, which I have 
kept for the ending of this part of my subject, and 
which is the ordinary one by which we call the 
Bishop of Eome. This name was common to bishops ; 

* In the \&t title of the Fdbrian Code, the Saint gives as a further 
reason why he dwells on the testimony of S. Bernard the fact that 
Calvin and others have put him forward as au adversary of papal 
supremacy. [Tr.] 

294 '^^^ Catholic Controversy, [partil 

witness S. Jerome, who thus styles S. Augustine in 
an Epistle : * " May the Almighty keep thee safe, 
Lord, truly holy and reverend pope." But it has 
been made particular to the Pope by excellence, on 
account of the universality of his charge, whence he 
is called in the Council of Chalcedon, Universal Pope, 
and simply Pope, without addition or limitation. 
And this word means nothing more than chief father 
or grandfather. Papos aviasque trementes anteferunt 
patrihus seri novd curd nepotes.i 

And that you may know how ancient this name 
is amongst good men — [hear] S. Ignatius, disciple of the 
Apostles: "When thou wast," says he, "at Eome with 
Pope Linus." J Already at that time there were 
papists, and of what sort ! 

We call him His Holiness, and we find that S. 
Jerome already called him by the same name : § 
" I beseech thy Blessedness, by the cross, &c. . . . 
I following Christ alone am joined in communion 
with thy Blessedness, that is, the chair of Peter." 
We call him Holy Father, but you have seen that 
S. Jerome so calls S. Augustine. 

For the rest, those who, explaining chapter ii. of 
the 2d of Thessalonians, to make you believe the Pope 
is Antichrist, may have told you that he makes himself 
be called God on earth, or Son of God, are the greatest 
liars in the world : for so far are the popes from 
taking any ambitious title, that from the time of S. 
Gregory they have for the most part called themselves 

* 97. 

t " Late born grandsons, reversing the ordinary rule, cherish their 
trembling grandsires and grandames more than their parents." — 
Ausonius ad nep. 

t Ad Mariani Zarbensem. § Ad Dam, ep. 15. 

ART. VI. 0. XIII.] The Rule of Faith. 295 

Servants of the servants of God. Never have they 
called themselves by such names as you say except 
in the ordinary acceptation, as every one can be if 
he keep the commandments of God, according to the 
power given to them that believe in his name (John i.) 
Rightly indeed might those call themselves children 
of the devil who lie so foully as do your ministers. 



It is certainly not without mystery that often in the 
Gospel where there is occasion for the Apostles in 
general to speak, S. Peter alone speaks for all. In 
S. John (vi.) it was he who said for all : Lord, to 
whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal 
life. And we have believed and have known that thou 
art the Christ the Son of God. It was he, in S. 
Matthew (xvi.), who in the name of all made that 
noble confession : Thou art Christ, the Son of the 
living God. He asked for all : Behold we have left all 
things, &c. (Matt, xxvii.) In S. Luke (xii.) : Lord, dost 
thou speak this parable to lis, or likewise to all ? 

It is usual that the head should speak for the 
whole body ; and what the head says is considered 
to be said by all the rest. Do you not see that in 
the election of S. Matthias it is he alone whcr 'speak$^- 
and determines ? ^a^xS ^ " "- 

296 The Catholic Controversy. [paeth. 

The Jews asked all the Apostles : Wliai shall we do, 
men and brethren (Acts, ii.) ? S. Peter alone answers for 
all : Do penance, &c. And it is for this reason that 
S. Chrysostom and Origen have called him " the 
mouth and the crown of the Apostles," as we saw 
above, because he was accustomed to speak for all 
the Apostles ; and the same S. Chrysostom calls him 
" the mouth of Christ," because what he says for the 
whole Church and to the whole Church as head and 
pastor, is not so much a word of man as of Our Lord : 
Amen, I say to you he that receiveth whomsoever 1 send 
receiveth me (John xiii.). Therefore what he said and 
determined could not be false. And truly if the con- 
firmer be fallen, have not all the rest fallen ? — if the 
confirmer fall or totter, who shall confirm him ? — if the 
confirmer be not firm and steady, when the others 
grow weak who shall strengthen them ? For it is 
written that if the blind lead the blind both shall fall 
into the ditch, and if the unsteady and the feeble would 
hold up and support the feeble, they shall both come 
to ground. So that Our Lord, giving authority and 
command to Peter to confirm the others, has in like 
proportion given him the power and the means to do 
this ; otherwise vainly would he have commanded 
things that were impossible. Now in order to con- 
firm the others and to strengthen the weak, one must 
not be subject to weakness oneself, but be solid and 
fixed as a true stone and a rock. Such was S. Peter, 
in so far as he was Pastor-general and governor of the 

So when S. Peter was placed as foundation of the 
Church, and the Church was certified that the gates 
of hell should not prevail against it, — was it not 

ART. VI. c. XIII.] The Rule of Faith. 297 

enough to say that S. Peter, as foundation-stone of 
the ecclesiastical government and administration, could 
not be crushed and broken by infidelity or error, 
which is the principal gate of hell ? For who knows 
not that if the foundation be overthrown, if that can 
be sapped, the whole building falls. In the same way, 
if the supreme acting shepherd can conduct his sheep 
into venomous pastures, it is clearly visible that the 
flock is soon to be lost. For if the supreme acting 
shepherd leads out of the path, who will put him 
right ? if he stray, who will bring him back ? 

In truth, it is necessary that we should follow him 
simply, not guide him ; otherwise the sheep would be 
shepherds. And indeed the Church cannot always be 
united in General Council, and during the first three 
centuries none were held. In the difficulties then 
which daily arise, to whom could one better address 
oneself, from whom could one take a safer law, a 
surer rule, than from the general head, and from the 
vicar of Our Lord ? Now all this has not only been 
true of S. Peter, but also of his successors; for the 
cause remaining the effect remains likewise. The 
Church has always need of an infallible * confirmer, 
to whom she can appeal ; of a foundation which the 
gates of hell, and principally error, cannot overthrow ; 
and has always need that her pastor should be unable 
to lead her children into error. The successors, then, 
of S. Peter all have these same privileges, which do 
not follow the person but the dignity and public 

S. Bernard calls the Pope another " Moses in 

* Here the French editor had substituted permanent for infallible. 

298 The Catholic Controversy. [part 11. 

authority." Now how great the authority of Moses 
was every one knows. For he sat and judged con- 
cerning all the differences amongst the people, and all 
difficulties which occurred in the service of God : he 
appointed judges for affairs of slight importance, but the 
great doubts were reserved for his cognizance : if God 
would speak to the people, it is by his mouth and 
using him as a medium. So then the supreme pastor 
of the Church is competent and sufficient judge for 
us in all our greatest difficulties ; otherwise we should 
be in worse condition than that ancient people who 
had a tribunal to which they might appeal for the 
resolution of their doubts, particularly in religious 
matters. And if any one would reply that Moses was 
not a priest, nor an ecclesiastical pastor, I would send 
him back to what I have said above on this point. For 
it would be tedious to make these repetitions. 

In Deuteronomy (xvii.) : Thou shalt do whatsoever 
they shall say that preside in the place which the Lord 
shall choose, and what they shall teach thee according to 
his law : neither shalt thou decline to the right hand 
nor to the left hand. But he that shall he proud, and 
refuse to ohey the commandment of the priest . . . that 
man shall die. What will you say to this necessity 
of accepting the judgment of the sovereign pontiff ? — 
that one was obliged to accept that judgment which 
was according to the law, not any other ? Yes, but 
in this it was needful to follow the sentence of the 
priest ; otherwise, if one had not followed it but had 
examined into it, it would have been vain to have 
gone to him, and the difficulty and doubt would never 
have been settled. Therefore it is said simply : He 
that shall he proud, and refuse to ohey the commandment 

ART. VI. 0. XIII.] The Rule of Faith, 299 

of the priest and the decree of the judge shall die. And 
in Malachy (ii. 7) : The lips of the priest shall keep 
knowledge ; and they shall seek the law at his mouth. 
Whence it follows that not everybody could answer 
himself in religious matters, nor bring forward the 
law after his own fancy, but must do so according as 
the pontiff laid it down. Now if God had such great 
providence over the religion and peace of conscience 
of the Jews as to establish for them a supreme judge 
in whose sentence they were bound to acquiesce, there 
can be no doubt he has provided Christianity with a 
pastor, who has this same authority, to remove the 
doubts and scruples which might arise concerning the 
declarations of the Scriptures. 

And if the High Priest wore on his breast the 
Eational of judgment (Ex. xxviii.), in which were the 
Urim and the Thummim, doctrine and truth, as some 
interpret them, or illuminations and perfections, as 
others say (which is almost the same thing, since 
perfection consists in truth and doctrine is only 
illumination) — shall we suppose that the High Priest 
of the New Law has not also the efficacy of them ? 
In truth, all that was given out and out to the ancient 
Church, and to the servant Agar, has been given in 
much better form to Sara and to the Spouse. Our 
High Priest then still has the Urim and the Thummim 
on his breast. 

Now whether this doctrine and truth were nothing 
but these two words inscribed on the Eational, as S. 
Augustine seems to think and Hugh of S. Victor 
maintains, or whether they were the name of God, as 
Rabbi Solomon asserts according to Vatablus and 
Augustine bishop of Eugubium, or whether it was 

300 The Catholic Controvei^sy, [paetii. 

simply the stones of the Eational, by which Almighty 
God revealed his will to the priest, as that learned 
man Francis Eibera holds; — the reasons why the 
High Priest had doctrine and truth in the Eational on 
his breast was without doubt because he declared the 
truth of judgment, as by the Urim and Thummim the 
priests were instructed as to the good pleasure of 
God, and their understandings enlightened and per- 
fected by the Divine revelation : thus the good Lyra 
understood it, and Eibera has in my opinion sufficiently 
proved. Hence when David wished to know whether 
he should pursue the Amalecites he said to the priest 
Abiathar : Bring me hither the ephod ( i Kings 
XXX. 7), or vestment for the shoulders, which was 
without doubt to discover the will of God by means 
of the Eational which was joined to it, as this Doctor 
Eibera continues learnedly to prove. I ask you, — if 
in the shadow there were illuminations of doctrine 
and perfections of truth on the breast of the priest 
to feed and confirm the people therewith, what is 
there that our High Priest shall not have, the priest 
of us, I say, who are in the day and under the risen 
sun ? The High Priest of old was but the vicar and 
lieutenant of Our Lord, as ours is, but he would seem 
to have presided over the night by his illuminations, 
and ours presides over the day by his instructions ; 
both of them as ministering for another and by the 
light of the Sun of Justice, who though he is risen is 
still veiled from our eyes by our own mortality ; — for 
to see him face to face belongs ordinarily to those 
alone who are delivered from the body which goes to 
corruption. This has been the faith of the whole 
ancient Church, which in its difficulties has always 

ART. VI. c. xiii.] The Rule of Faith. 301 

had recourse to the Eational of the See of Eome to 
see therein doctrine and truth. It is for this reason 
that S. Bernard has called the Pope " Aaron in 
dignity," * and S. Jerome the Holy See " the most 
safe harbour of Catholic communion," and " heir of 
the Apostles," for he bears the Eational to enlighten 
with it the whole of Christendom, like the Apostles 
and Aaron, in doctrine and truth. It is in this 
sense that S. Jerome says to S. Damasus : " He who 
gathereth not with thee scattereth, that is, he who is 
not of Christ is of Antichrist ; " and S. Bernard says t 
that the scandals which occur, particularly in the faith, 
must be brought before the Eoman See : — " for I 
think it proper that there chiefly should the damage 
of faith be repaired where faith cannot fail ; for to 
what other see was it ever said : / have prayed for 
thee that thy faith fail not ? " And S. Cyprian : | 
" They dare to sail off to the Apostolic See and to the 
chief (principalem) Church, forgetting tliat those are 
Eomans, to whom wrong faith cannot have access." 
Do you not see that he speaks of the Eomans because 
of the Chair of S. Peter, and says that error cannot 
prevail there. The Fathers of the Council of Milevis 
with the Blessed S. Augustine demand help and in- 
voke the authority of the Eoman See against the 
Pelagian heresy, writing to Pope Innocent in these 
terms : " We beseech you to deign to apply the 
pastoral solicitude to the great dangers of the infirm 
members of Christ ; since a new heresy and most 

* See references previously. In margin here the Saint adds : " S. 
Bernard, in his letter to the Canons of Lyons, submits all his writings 
to the Roman Church." [Tr.] 

t Ep. 190. t Ep. 55. 

302 The Catholic Controversy, [partil 

destructive tempest has begun to arise amongst the 
enemies of the grace of Christ." And if you would 
know why they appeal to him, what do they say ? 
" The Lord has by his highest favour placed thee in 
the Apostolic See." This is what this holy Council 
with its great S. Augustine believed, to whom S. 
Innocent replying in a Letter which follows the one 
just quoted amongst those of S. Augustine : " Care- 
fully and rightfully," he says, " have you consulted the 
secret oracles of the Apostolic honour : his, I say, 
with whom, besides those things which are outside, 
remains the solicitude of all the churches as to what 
doctrine is to be held in doubtful things. For you 
have followed the fashion of the ancient rule, which 
you and I know to have been always held by the 
whole world. But this I pass over, for I do not 
believe that it is unknown to your wisdom ; how indeed 
have you confirmed it by your actions, save knowing 
that throughout all the provinces answers to peti- 
tioners ever emanate from the Apostolic See ? Espe- 
cially when questions of faith are discussed, I 
consider that all our brethren and co-bishops must 
refer to Peter only, that is, to the author of their 
name and honour; even as your charity has now 
referred that which may advantage all churches in 
general throughout the whole world." Behold the 
honour and credit in which was the Apostolic See 
with the most learned and most holy of the Ancients, 
yea with entire Councils. They went to it as to the 
true Ephod and Rational of the new law. Thus did 
S. Jerome go to it in the time of Damasus, to whom, 
after having said that the East was cutting and tearing 
to pieces the robe of Our Lord, seamless and woven 

ART. VI. 0. XIII.] The Rule of Faith. 303 

from the top throughout, and that the little foxes were 
spoiling the vineyard of the Master, he says : " As it is 
difficult, amongst broken cisterns that can hold no 
water, to discern where is that fountain sealed up, and 
garden enclosed, therefore I considered that I must 
consult the Chair of Peter and the faith praised by 
Apostolic mouth." I shall never end if I try to bring 
forward the grand words which the Ancients have 
uttered on this point : he who wishes can read them 
quoted in the great Catechism of Peter Canisius, in 
which they have been given in full by Busseus. 
S. Cyprian refers all heresies and schisms to the con- 
tempt of this chief minister ; * so does S. Jerome ; t 
S. Ambrose holds for one same thing " to communicate 
and agree with the Catholic bishops and to agree with 
the Eoman Church : " | he protests that he follows in 
all things and everywhere the form of the Eoman 
Church. S. Irenseus will have every one be united to 
this Holy See, " on account of its principal power." 
The Eusebians bring before it the accusations against 
S. Athanasius ; S. Athanasius, who was at Alexandria, 
a principal and patriarchal see, went to answer at 
Eome, being called and cited to appear there : his 
adversaries would not appear, "knowing," says Theo- 
doret, " that their lies were manifested in open court." 
The Eusebians acknowledge the authority of the see 
of Eome when they call S. Athanasius thither, and 
S. Athanasius when he presents himself. But parti- 
cularly do those Arian heretics the Eusebians confess 
the authority of the see of Eome when they dare not 
appear there for fear of being condemned. 

* Ad. Cornel, contra Feliciss. t Adv. Lucif. 

X De excessu Fratris, 46. 

304 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

But who does not know that all the ancient heretics 
tried to get themselves acknowledged by the Pope ? 
Witness the Montanists or Cataphrygians, who so 
deceived Pope Zephyrinus, if we may believe Ter- 
tuUian (not now the man he had been but become a 
heretic himself), that he issued letters of reunion in 
their favour, which, however, he promptly revoked by 
the advice of Praxeas. In fine, he who despises the 
authority of the Pope will restore the Pelagians, 
Priscillians and others, who were only condemned by 
provincial councils with the authority of the Holy See 
of Eome. If I wished to occupy myself in showing 
you how much Luther made of it in the beginning of 
his heresy I should astonish you with the great altera- 
tion in this your father. Look at him in Cochlseus : 
"Prostrate at the feet of Your Beatitude, I offer 
myself with all I am and have ; give me life, slay me, 
call, recall, approve, reject ; I shall acknowledge the 
voice of Christ presiding and speaking," These are 
his words in the dedicatory letter which he wrote to 
Pope Leo X. on certain conclusions of his, in the year 
1 5 1 8. But I cannot omit what this great arch- 
minister wrote in 1 5 1 9, in certain other resolutions of 
other propositions ; for in the thirteenth he not only 
acknowledges the authority of the Holy Eoman See, 
but proves it by six reasons which he holds to be 
demonstrations. I will summarise them : ist reason — 
the Pope could not have reached this height and this 
monarchy except by the will of God ; but the will 
of God is always to be venerated, therefore the primacy 
of the Pope is not to be called in question. 2d. We 
must give in to an adversary rather than break the 
union of charity ; therefore it is better to obey the 

ART. VI. c. XIV.] The Rule of Faith, 305 

Pope than to separate from the Church. 3d. We 
must not resist God who wills to lay on us the burden 
of obeying many rulers, according to the word of 
Solomon in his Proverbs (xxviii. 2). 4th. There is 
no power which is not from God, therefore that of 
the Pope which is so fully established is from God. 
5 th. Practically the same. 6th. All the faithful so 
believe, and it is impossible that Our Lord should not 
be with them ; now we must stay with Our Lord and 
Christiane in all things and everywhere : He says 
afterwards that these reasons were unanswerable, and 
that all the Scripture comes to support them. What 
do you think of Luther, — is he not a Catholic ? And 
yet this was at the beginning of his reformation. 

Calvin gives the same testimony, though he goes 
on to embroil the question as much as he can ; for 
speaking of the See of Eome he confesses that the 
Ancients have honoured and revered it, that it has 
been the refuge of bishops, and more firm in the faith 
than the other sees, which last fact he attributes to a 
want of quickness of understanding. 



Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear 
the Rational except when he was vested in the ponti- 
fical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus 
we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private 
opinions, as did John XXII. ; or be altogether a heretic 
III. u 

3o6 The Catholic Controversy. [partii. 

as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly 
a heretic, he falls i'pso facto from his dignity and out 
of the Church, and the Church must either deprive 
him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his 
Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did : Let 
another take his hishopric* When he errs in his 
private opinion he must be instructed, advised, con- 
vinced ; as happened with John XXIL, who was so far 
from dying obstinate or from determining anything 
during his life concerning his opinion, that he died 
whilst he was making the examination which is 
necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his 
successor declared in the JExtravag antes which begins 
Benedictus Deus. But when he is clothed with the 
pontifical garments, I mean when he teaches the whole 
Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and 
morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. 
And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an 
edict, but that only which a king says as king and 
as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not 
canon law or of legal obligation ; he must mean to 
define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he 
must keep the due order and form. Thus we say 
that we must appeal to him not as to a learned man, 
for in this he is ordinarily surpassed by some others, 
but as to the general head and pastor of the Church : 
and as such we must honour, follow, and firmly 
embrace his doctrine, for then he carries on his breast 
the Urim and Thummim, doctrine and truth. And 
again we must not think that in everything and every- 
where his judgment is infallible, but then only when 
he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions 

* Acts i. 

ART. VI. c. XIV.] The Rule of Faith. 307 

necessary to the whole Church ; for in particular cases 
which depend on human fact he can err, there is no 
doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these 
cases save with all reverence, submission, and dis- 
cretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he 
can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right ; 
that he can err extra cathedram, outside the chair of 
Peter, that is, as a private individual, by writings and 
bad example. 

But he cannot err when he is in cathedra^ that is, 
when he intends to make an instruction and decree 
for the guidance of the whole Church, when he 
means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and 
to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For 
then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, 
and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, 
which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our 
Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church, 
and, as the Greek says and the Church seems to 
understand in a collect of Pentecost,"^ conducts and 
directs his Church into all truth : But token that 
Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth, 
or, will lead you into all truth.'f And how does the 
Holy Spirit lead the Church except by the ministry 
and office of preachers and pastors ? But if the 
pastors have pastors they must also follow them, as 
all must follow him who is the supreme pastor, by 
whose ministry Our God wills to lead not only the 
lambs and little sheep, but the sheep and mothers of 
lambs ; that is, not the people only but also the other 
pastors : he succeeds S. Peter, who received this charge : 
Feed my sheep. Thus it is that God leads his Church 
* Wednesday in Whit-week. f John xvi. 13. 

3o8 The Catholic Controversy. [part h. 

into the pastures of his Holy Word, and in the exposi- 
tion of this he who seeks the truth under other lead- 
ing loses it. The Holy Spirit is the leader of the 
Church, he leads it by its pastor ; he therefore who 
follows not the pastor follows not the Holy Spirit. 

But the great Cardinal of Toledo remarks most 
appositely on this place that it is not said he shall 
carry the Church into all truth, but he shall lead ; to 
show that though the Holy Spirit enlightens the 
Church, he wills at the same time that she should use 
the diligence which is required for keeping the true 
way, as the Apostles did, who, having to give an 
answer to an important question, debated, comparing 
the Holy Scriptures together; and when they had 
diligently done this they concluded by the — It hath 
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us ; that is, the 
Holy Spirit has enlightened us and we have walked, 
he has guided us and we have followed him, up to 
this truth. The ordinary means must be employed to 
discover the truth, and yet in this must be acknow- 
ledged the drawing and presence of the Holy Spirit. 
Thus is the Christian flock led, — by the Holy Spirit but 
under the charge and guidance of its Pastor, who 
however does not walk at hazard, but according to 
necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially 
or universally, carefully regards the track of his pre- 
decessors, considers the ITrim and Thummim of the 
Word of God, enters before his God by his prayers 
and invocations, and, having thus diligently sought 
out the true way, boldly puts himself on his voyage 
and courageously sets sail. Happy the man who 
follows him and puts himself under the discipline 
of his crook ! Happy the man who embarks in his 

ART. VI. 0. XIV.] The Rule of Faith. 309 

boat, for he shall feed on truth, and shall arrive at 
the port of holy doctrine ! 

Thus he never gives a general command to the 
whole Church in necessary things except with the 
assistance of the Holy Spirit, who, as he is not want- 
ing in necessary things even to the animals, because 
lie has established them, will not be more wanting to 
Christianity in what is necessary for its life and per- 
fection. And how would the Church be one and 
holy, as the Scriptures and Creeds describe her ? 
— for if she followed a pastor, and the pastor erred, 
how would she be holy ; if she followed him not, how 
would she be one ? And what confusion would be 
seen in Christendom, while the one party should con- 
sider a law good the others bad, and while the sheep, 
instead of feeding and fattening in the pasture of 
Scripture and the Holy Word, should occupy them- 
selves in controlling the decision of their superior ? 

It remains therefore that according to Divine Pro- 
vidence we consider as closed that which S. Peter 
shall close with his keys, and as open that which he 
shall open, when seated in his chair of doctrine teach- 
ing the whole Church. 

If indeed the ministers had censured vices, proved 
the inutility of certain decrees and censures, borrowed 
some holy counsels from the ethical books of S. 
Gregory, and from S. Bernard's Be GonMeratione, 
brought forward some good plan for removing the 
abuses which have crept into the administration of 
benefices through the malice of the age and of men, 
and had addressed themselves to His Holiness with 
humility and gratitude, all good men would have 
honoured them and favoured their designs. The good 

310 The Catholic Controversy, [partu. 

Cardinals Contarini the Theatine, Sadolet, and Pole, 
with those other great men who counselled the refor- 
mation of abuses in this way, have thereby deserved 
immortal commendation from posterity. But to fill 
heaven and earth with invectives, railings, outrages, — 
to calumniate the Pope, and not only in his person, 
which is bad enough, but in his office, to attack the 
See which all antiquity has honoured, to wish to go so 
far as to sit in judgment upon him, contrary to the 
sense of the whole Church, to style his position itself 
anti-Christianism — who shall call this right ? If the 
great Council of Chalcedon was so indignant when 
the Patriarch Dioscorus excommunicated Pope Leo, 
who can endure the insolence of Luther, who issued a 
Bull in which he excommunicates the Pope and the 
bishops and the whole Church ? All the Church 
gives him (the Pope) patents of honour, speaks to him 
with reverence. What shall we say of that fine pre- 
face in which Luther addressed the Holy See : " Martin 
Luther to the most Holy Apostolic See and its whole 
Parliament, grace and health. In the first place, most 
holy see, crack but burst not on account of this new 
salutation in which I place my name first and in the 
principal place." And after having quoted the Bull 
against which he was writing, he begins with these 
wicked and vile words : " Ego autem dico ad papam et 
hullce hujus minas, istud : qui prce minis moritur ad 
ejus sepulturam compulsari debet crepitihus ventris." 
And when writing against the King of England, — 
" Living," said he, " I will be the enemy of the papacy, 
burnt I will be thy enemy." What say you of this 
great Father of the Church? Are not these words 
worthy of such a reformer ? I am ashamed to read 

ART. VI. c XIV.] The Rtile of Faith, 311 

them, and my hand is vexed when it lays out such 
shameful things, but if they are hidden from you, you 
will never believe that he is such as he is, — and when 
he says : " It is ours not to be judged by him but to 
judge him." 

But I detain you too long on a subject which does 
not require great examination. You read the writings 
of Calvin, of Zwingle, of Luther : take out of these, I 
beg you, the railings, calumnies, insults, detraction, 
ridicule, and buffoonery which they contain against 
the Pope and the Holy See of Kome, and you will find 
that nothing will remain. You listen to your ministers ; 
impose silence upon them as regards railings, detrac- 
tion, calumnies against the Holy See, and you will 
have your sermons half their length. They utter a 
thousand calumnies on this point: this is the general 
rendezvous of all your ministers. On whatever sub- 
jects they may be composing their books, as if they were 
tired and spent with their labour they stay to dwell 
on the vices of the Popes, very often saying what they 
know well not to be the fact. Beza says that for a 
long time there has been no Pope who has cared 
about religion or who has been a theologian. Is he 
not seeking to deceive somebody ? — for he knows well 
that Adrian, Marcellus, and these five last have been 
very great theologians. What does he mean by these 
lies ? But let us say that there may be vice and 
ignorance : " What has the Eoman Chair done to 
thee," says S. Augustine,* " in which Peter sat and in 
which now Anastasius sits ? . . . Why do you call 
the Apostlic Chair the chair of pestilence ? If it is 
on account of men whom you consider to be declaring 

* Contra lit. Petil. ii. 51. 

312 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

and not keeping the law — did Our Lord, on account of 
the Pharisees, of whom he said : they say and do not 
do any injury to the chair in which they sat ? Did 
he not commend that chair of Moses, and reprove 
them, saving the honour of their chair ? For he says : 
Super catJiedram, &c, (Matt, xxiii. 2). If you con- 
sidered these things you would not, on account of 
the men you speak against, blaspheme the Apostolic 
Chair, with which you do not communicate. But 
what does it all mean save that they have nothing to 
say, and yet are unable to keep from ill-saying." 





In order that Moses might be believed God gave him 
power to work miracles (Ex. iv.) ; Our Lord, says S. 
Mark (ult.), confirmed in the same manner the Apostolic 
preaching ; if Our Lord had not done such miracles 
men would not have sinned in not believing in him, 

* The Saint has the following detached note : " I keep a place for 
proving the faith by miracles, after the 'Rules of faith.' This will 
be a sort of 6th (7th) Rule, not ordinary but extraordinary, which 
our adversaries have not, though they would need to have it, as they 
despise the others which they lack. I will there bring in the saying 
of the Sr. des Montaignes." [Tr.] 

ART. vn. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 3 1 3 

says the same Lord (John xv. 24) ; S. Paul testifies 
that God confirmed the faith by miracles (Heb. ii. 4). 
Therefore a miracle is a sound proof of the faith, and 
an important argument for persuading men to believe ; 
for if it were not our God would not have made use 
of it. 

And it is needless to answer that miracles are no 
longer necessary after the sowing of the faith, for I 
have not only shown the contrary above, but I am 
now not maintaining that they are necessary, but 
simply that when it may please God to work them 
for the confirmation of some article we are obliged to 
believe it. For either the miracle is rightly per- 
suasive and confirmatory of belief or not : if not, then 
Our Lord did not rightly confirm his doctrine ; if it 
be, then when miracles do take place they oblige us 
to accept them as a most convincing reason, — which 
of course they are. 

Thoib art the God who doest wonders, says David 
(Ps. Ixxvi. 15) to Almighty God, therefore that which 
is confirmed by miracles is confirmed on the part of God ; 
now God cannot be author or confirmer of a lie, that 
therefore which is confirmed by miracles cannot be 
a lie, but must be absolute truth. 

And, in order to obviate idle objections, I allow 
that there are false miracles and true miracles, and 
that among true miracles there are some which evi- 
dently argue the presence of God's power, and others 
which do so only by their circumstances. The 
miracles which Antichrist will do will all be false, 
both because his intention will be to deceive, and 
because one part will only be illusions and vain 
magical appearances, the other part not miracles in 

314 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

nature but only miracles to men, — that is, on account 
of being extraordinary they will seem miracles to 
simple folk. Such will be his making fire come down 
from heaven in the sight of men (Apoc. xiii.), his 
making the image of the beast speak, and healing a 
mortal wound. Of these, the descent of the fire upon 
the earth and the speaking of the image will, as it 
seems, be mere illusions, whence he adds in the sight 
of men; they will be acts of magic. The healing of 
the mortal wound will be a popular not a philosopher's 
miracle ; — for when the people see what they think 
impossible they take it to be a miracle, as they 
consider many things impossible in nature which are 
not so. Now many cures are of this kind, and man;y 
wounds are mortal and incurable to some doctors 
which are not so to those who are more competent 
and have some choicer remedy. Thus that wound 
will be mortal according to the ordinary course of 
medicine ; but the devil, who is more advanced in 
the knowledge of the virtues of herbs, perfumes, 
minerals, and other drugs than men are, will effect 
this cure by the secret application of medicaments 
unknown to men ; and this will appear a miracle to 
any one who is unable to distinguish between human 
and diabolic knowledge,* between diabolic and divine ; 
whereas while the diabolic exceeds the human by a 
great degree, the divine surpasses the diabolic by an 
infinity. Human science extends to but a little part 
of the virtue which is in nature, diabolic goes much 
further, but divine has no other limits, in dealing 
with nature, but its own infinity. 

* The following note is placed in the margin of the autograph : 
Ilfaut abieger tout ceci d peu de paroles et scholastiques. [Tr.] 

ART. VII. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith, 315 

I said that amoDg true miracles there are some 
which furnish a certain knowledge and proof that the 
power of God is at work therein, others not so except 
by consideration and aid of the circumstances. This 
appears from what I have said ; and, for example, the 
wonders which the Egyptian magicians did (Ex. iv.— 
viii.) were exactly like those of Moses as regards the 
external appearance, but he who considers the circum- 
stances will very easily see that the one kind were 
true miracles, the others false ; as the magicians 
themselves confessed, when they said : The finger of 
God is here. So might I say if Our Lord had never 
done other miracles than to tell the Samaritan woman 
that he whom she then had was not her husband 
(John iv. 1 8), or than to change the water into wine 
(lb. ii.), it might have been possible to think that 
there was illusion and magic ; but since these wonders 
proceeded from the same might which made the 
blind see, the dumb speak, the deaf hear, the dead 
live, there remained no room for doubt. Eor, to 
make things pass from privation and non-existence 
to actuality,* and to give to man the vital operations, 
are things impossible to all human powers ; these are 
strokes of the sovereign Master ; and when afterwards 
he pleases to effect cures or alterations in things by his 
almighty power, he still makes them to be recognised 
as miraculous even though secret nature may be able 
to do as much, — because, having done what surpasses 
nature, he has given us assurance of what he is and 
of the character of the [thing donej.t As when a 
man has made a masterpiece, though he may after- 

* La privation en son habitude. 
t The line here ends with de la. [Tr. ] 

3i6 The Catholic Controversy, [PARxn. 

wards do some common works we still consider him a 

In a word, the miracle, the true miracle, is a very- 
certain proof, and a certain confirmation of belief, 
and this at whatever time it may be worked, other- 
wise we must overthrow all the Apostolic preaching. 
It was reasonable that faith being of things which 
surpass nature, it should be certified by works which 
surpass nature, and which show that the preaching or 
announced word proceeds from the mouth and autho- 
rity of the Master of nature, whose power is un- 
limited, and who, by a miracle, makes himself witness 
of the truth, subscribes and stamps the word delivered 
by the preacher. 

Now it seems that miracles are general attestations 
for the simple and commoner sort ; for not every one 
can go so deep as to the admirable harmony there is 
between the Prophets and the Gospel, to the great 
wisdom of the Scriptures, or to similar striking marks, 
which distinguish the Christian religion. This is an 
examination for the learned to make ; but there is no 
one who does not comprehend the argument furnished 
by a true miracle ; everybody understands that lan- 
guage. Amongst Christians it seems as if miracles 
are not necessary, but in reality they are ; and it is 
not without reason that the sweetness of Divine Provi- 
dence supplies them to his Church at all seasons, for 
in all there are heresies. These indeed are sufficiently 
condemned, even according to the capacity of the less 
gifted, by the antiquity, majesty, unity, Catholicity, 
sanctity of the Church, but everybody cannot value 
his inheritance (as Optatus says) according to its true 
value. Everybody does not understand this language 

ART. VII. c. II.] The Rule of Faith, 317 

in its full force, but when God speaks by works every- 
body understands — this is a language common to all 
nations. So the writing on letters of protection may 
not be recognised by everybody, but when the white 
cross, the arms of the Prince, are seen, all the world 
knows that sovereign approval and authority run there. 



There is scarcely any article of our religion which has 
not been approved of God by miracles. The miracles 
which take place in the Church, showing where the 
true Church is, sufficiently prove all the belief of the 
Church : for God would never bear witness to a 
Church which had not the true faith and was erring, 
idolatrous, and deceiving. 

But this supreme goodness does' not stop there ; it 
has confirmed almost all the points of the Catholic faith 
by illustrious miracles, and we find that, by a special 
providence of God, he has born witness, in a most 
remarkable manner and by incontestable miracles, to 
the truth of what we teach on practically all the 
points of difference between us and the ministers. 

" When Agapitus, the Bishop of the holy Eoman 
Church," says S. Gregory the Great,* " was going 

* Dialog., 1. iii. c. iii. 

3i8 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

through Greece to visit the Emperor Justinian, the 
relatives of a certain dumb and lame man presented 
him to Agapitus to be healed, affirming that they had 
a firm confidence that he would be cured, in the power 
of God, by the authority of Peter." Behold the 
belief of these good folk ; they held that the Pope 
had succeeded in the authority of Peter and that 
therefore he also possessed authority in an eminent 
degree. One of your ministers would have called 
them superstitious ; the Catholic Church would have 
maintained, as it does now, that their belief was 
justified. Let us see what testimony Our Lord bore 
to it. " Upon this," continues St. Gregory, " the vener- 
able man betook himself to prayer, and celebrating 
holy Mass offered Sacrifice in the sight of the most 
High. When he had ended and was leaving the altar, 
he took the hand of the lame man, and before the eyes 
of the attendant people he raised him from the ground, 
and gave him to stand by his own feet, and placing the 
Lord's body in his mouth, that long silent tongue 
was loosed and spoke. All the people, struck with 
admiration, began to shed tears of joy, and a great 
fear and reverence came upon them when they saw 
what Agapitus was enabled to do, in the power of the 
Lord, by Peter's assistance." Such are the words of 
S. Gregory. 

What do you say to this ? If you asked me who 
worked this miracle, I reply by the very words of 
Our Lord.* The, Mind see, the lame walk, the lepers 
are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, to the 
poor the Gospel is preached. In what faith was it 
granted ? In the faith that the Pope is the successor 

* Matt. xi. 5. 

ART. VII. 0. II. J The Rule of Faith. 319 

of Peter and has his sublime authority. By what 
acts was it gained ? By the most holy sacrifice of 
the Mass and the real application of the Lord's body 
to the mouth of the infirm man. In what did the 
miracle consist ? In the communication of a faculty 
of which the recipient had hitherto been short, in 
the bestowal of a vital operation, that is, of the 
hearing, for although it is not said that he was deaf, 
he was so in reality, because he who is born dumb 
is always deaf. What other conclusion, then, can we 
draw except that the, finger of God is here* that God 
has signed and sealed this our belief as to the suc- 
cession of the Pope in the authority of Peter, and as to 
the article of most holy Mass ? At what period did 
this miracle take place ? In the period of the most pure 
and holy Church ; for both Calvin and the Lutherans 
admit that the Church remained pure till after S. 
Gregory. Who relates the event ? A saintly and 
learned author, as our adversaries themselves confess, 
for they make him the last good Pope. Where did 
the miracle occur ? Before the eyes of a whole 
people, who were Greeks and not zealous upholders of 
the Holy See. 

Again, we preach the reality of the Body and Blood 
of Our Lord in the Sacrament of the altar. He him- 
self has authorised this belief by the miraculous sight 
of it which he gave to a Jew and a Jewess who were 
assisting at the Mass of S. Basil; as testifies S. 
Amphilochius,t who flourished about the year 380, 
to take another instance, a woman who had made 
the bread which was to be consecrated, when she saw 

* Exod. viii. 19. 
t VitaS.Basilii. This life is no longer regarded as authentic. [Tr.] 


20 T'Ae Catholic Controversy. [partii. 

S. Gregory the Great coming towards her, holding 
that which was no longer bread but the most holy 
Sacrament, and saying : Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu 
Christi custodial animam, &c., began to smile. S. 
Gregory asking her why she smiled, she replied that 
she herself had made the bread which he was calling 
the Lord's body. S. Gregory obtained by prayer that 
the Holy Eucharist should appear outwardly what 
it really was inwardly, whereby this poor woman was 
brought back to faith and the faith of all was con- 
firmed. The history is given by Paulus Diaconus.* 

We teach that Our Lord, really present in the 
Holy Sacrament, is to be adored there. Gorgonia, 
sister of S. Gregory Nozianzen, made such adoration 
and instantaneously grew well of a malady in itself 
incurable. Thus bears witness her brother himself.t 
S. Chrysostom relates J two admirable apparitions 
of bands of angels seen round the altar during the 
Holy Sacrifice, " their heads bowed as one sees the 
heads of soldiers bent before their king. And," adds 
that mouth of gold, " I readily believe it." 

We teach Transubstantiation ; and the narratives 
cited from S. Amphilochius and from Paulus Diaconus 
attest that mystery. 

We preach that the Holy Eucharist is not only a 
Sacrament but also a Sacrifice ; and S. Augustine, 
speaking of .a place belonging to Hesperius, in the 
district of Fussale, which had been made uninhabitable 
by the violence of evil spirits, says : § " One of the 
priests went to the spot, offered the Sacrifice of the 
Body of Christ, beseeching that if possible this vexa- 

* Vita S. Oregorii, sec. xxiii. t In Gorgon. , sec. xviii. 

X Be Sacerdot.y 1. vi. sec. 4. § De Civit. Dei, 1. xxii. c. viii. 

ART. VII. 0. II.] The Rule of Faith. 321 

tion might cease. By God's mercy it did so at once." 
What I have related of Agapitus comes in here. 

We preach the holy Communion of Saints in the 
prayer which they make for us and in the honour which 
we pay them ; but when should I stop if I wanted to 
give you a list of all the miracles which have occurred 
in support of this belief ? Theodoret, in his work 
Be cur and. Grcec. affect, j discourses at length upon 
them. S. Gregory Nazianzen narrates an incontes- 
table miracle in the conversion of S. Cyprian by 
Our Lady.* 

We honour their relics ; take note how S. Augus- 
tine gives a lengthy history of certain miracles effected 
by the relics of S. Stephen,t and in the same place 
he describes one which was worked by the relics of 
S. Gervase at Milan, viz., the cure of a blind man. 
He gives it again in his '* Confessions/' J and we have 
it also in S. Ambrose. § 

We use the sign of the cross against the devil; 
and S. Gregory Nazianzen informs us || that Julian 
the apostate, on an occasion of an idolatrous sacrifice, 
when the devil appeared to him, made this sign. The 
devil took to flight. The sorcerer or magician told 
the apostate that he fled not out of fear but out of 
disgust ; " He had us in abomination, not in dread, 
said the sorcerer ; what is worst triumphs." Eusebius 
testifies to the wonders worked by this holy sign in 
the time of Constantino the Great.H 

In our churches we have sacred vessels ; and S. 
Chrysostom recounts that Julian, the uncle of the 

* In laudem Cypr., sec. xi. t Be Civit. Dei, 1. xxii. c. viii. 

X Lib. ix. c. vii, § Serrno vel Epist. de invent. SS. Gerv. et Prot. 

II Orat I. contra Jul., sectiS. Iv. Ivi. H Vita Const., 1. ii. cc. vi.-xv. 

322 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

Emperor Julian, together with a certain treasurer, 
stole and profaned them.* Julian, however, died 
shortly after, eaten up by worms ; the treasurer burst 
in two on the spot. 

We venerate the sacred chrism with which the 
baptized are anointed in holy Confirmation ; and S. 
Optatus of Milevis tells that when the phial or 
ampulla of the holy chrism was cast by the Donatists 
upon the rocks, " an angelic hand was there to direct 
it with an invisible upholding ; it was thrown down, 
but it did not suffer from the fall." t 

We humbly confess our sins to our ecclesiastical 
superiors ; and S. John Climacus relates that while 
a certain great sinner was confessing his crimes, there 
was seen one of grand and terrible aspect, who ruled 
out the sins from a register as fast as they were con- 
fessed ; for, says the same Climacus, confession surely 
delivers from the eternal confusion. J 

We have images in our churches ; but who knows 
not the history of the crucifying of an image of Our 
Lord by the Jews of Berytus in Syria ? Not only 
did blood flow forth, but this blood healed of all 
maladies those whom it touched. The great S. 
Athanasius gives the history. § 

We have the custom of using holy water and blessing 
bread ; but S. Jerome relates that many employed 
for healing the sick bread blessed by S. Hilarion ; || 
and S. Gregory the Great says that S. Fortunatus 
healed a man who had broken his leg by a fall 

* I)e S. Bahyla, sec. xvii. 
t Contra Donat., 1. ii. sec. xix. :|: Scala, grad. iv. 

§ De passione imag. Dom. Nostri. This ancient work is no longer 
attributed to S Athanasius. [Tr.] || Vita S. Hil., sec. xxx. 

ART. VII. 0. II.] The Rule of Faith. 323 

from his horse with a simple sprinkling of holy 
water.* Enough. 

And now, what a contempt it is of these numerous 
miracles to mock and jeer at all these doctrines and 
at the Church which teaches them ! If you do not 
value the testimony of antiquity, the testimony of God 
is greater.^ What will you answer ? For my part, 
I have only written here the first miracles which 
occurred to me, though I have taken them in the 
authors who belong to *' the pure Church." If I had 
cited you the miracles worked in the age of S. 
Bernard, S. Malachy, S. Bede, S. Francis, your 
ministers would at once have cried out that they 
were wonders of antichrist ; but since every one admits 
that antichrist only appeared some time after S. 
Gregory, and my facts all occurred before or during 
the time of S. Gregory, no difficulty can be made. 

The Arians denied the miracle worked on the blind 
man who was cured by touching the edge of the 
cloth which covered the relics of SS. Gervase and 
Protase, saying that he had not been cured ; S. 
Ambrose replies : | " They deny that the blind man's 
eyes were opened, but he does not deny his cure. 
But I ask," he continues a little further on, '' why 
do they not believe ? Do they maintain that no one 
can be aided by the Martyrs ? This is to disbelieve 
Christ, who said : § Greater things than these shall ye 
do.'' Further on S. Ambrose says : " They would 
not envy the works of the Martyrs unless they felt 
that these had in them the faith which they them- 
selves have not, that faith, confirmed by the traditions 

* Dialog., 1. i. c. x. t I. Joan, v. 9, 

X Sermo vel Epist. supra cit. § Joan, xiv. 12. 

324 The Catholic Controversy, [parth. 

of our elders, which the devils themselves cannot 
deny, though the Arians deny it. I do not accept the 
devil's testimony but his admissions." What circum- 
stance is wanting to lift these miracles above suspicion ? 
A part of them consists in the restitution of the essential 
vital operations, which cannot spring from other than 
divine power ; the time in which they occurred is quite 
close to that of Our Lord. The Church was all pure 
and holy ; there was no Antichrist in the world, as the 
ministers admit; the persons at whose intercession they 
were effected were very holy ; the faith confirmed by 
them was the common and most Catholic faith ; the 
authors who relate them are very safe. 

I borrow a passage for this place.* "When we 
read in Bouchett the miracles worked by the relics 
of S. Hilary — well, his credit is not so great as to 
deprive us of the liberty of contradicting him ; but 
to condemn out and out all such histories seems to 
me singularly impertinent. The great S. Augustine 
testifies that he saw a blind man recover his sight 
by the relics of SS. Gervase and Protase at Milan; 
that a woman at Carthage was cured of a cancer 
by the sign of the cross made over her by a woman 
freshly baptized; that Hesperius, one of his friends, 
had driven away the evil spirits that infested his 
house with a little earth from the sepulchre of Our 
Lord, which earth thence transported into the Church 
had instantaneously cured a paralytic who was there ; 
that in a certain procession a woman who had touched 
the reliquary of S. Stephen with a bunch of flowers 
recovered her sight by rubbing her eyes with these 

* Montaigne, Essais, 1. i. c. xxvi. 

t Miracula S. Hilarii (Vide in Actis SS., die xiii. Januarii). 

ART. VII. 0. 11.] The Rule of Faith. 325 

flowers. S. Augustine adds other miracles and affirms 
that he himself was present at them. Of what shall 
we accuse him and the two holy bishops Aurelius and 
Maximin, to whom he appeals as his guarantees ? Of 
ignorance, simplicity, credulity ? of malice and impos- 
ture ? Is there a man in our age impudent enough 
to think himself comparable with them, whether in 
virtue or in learning, judgment, and competence ? " 

I say the same of the two Saints Gregory whom 
I have cited, of S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Atha- 
nasius, Climacus, Optatus, Ambrose, Eusebius. Tell 
me, for God's sake, is not what they relate quite 
possible to God ? and if it be possible how shall we 
dare to deny that it has happened, since so many 
great personages so aver ? I have been asked more 
than once : Is the belief in these histories an article 
of faith ? No, it is not an article of faith, but it is 
an article of good sense and discretion. It is too 
evidently a folly and piece of silly arrogance to 
contradict these ancient and grave witnesses, on the 
simple ground that what they say does not square 
with our conceits. Is it for our little brain to place 
the limits of truth and falsehood, to give the law to 
being or not being ? 

326 The Catholic Controversy. [parth] 





GrOD is author in us of natural reason and hates 
nothing that he has made,* so that having signed 
our understanding with this his lightjt we must not 
imagine that that other and supernatural light which 
he imparts to the faithful, opposes and contradicts the 
natural. They are daughters of the same Father, the 
one by process of nature, the other by more noble 
and lofty birth ; they can, therefore, and should, 
live in harmony together as loving sisters. Whether 
in the natural or in the supernatural order, reason 
is always reason, and truth truth. The eye which 
sees two steps in advance amid the obscurity of 
a dark night, is the same as that which, in the full 
brightness of noon, takes in the whole circle of its 
horizon, only the light wliich serves it is different ; 
so it is certain that truth, whether of nature or 
above nature, is always the same, and there is only 
a difiference in the light which displays it to our 
understanding: faith shows it to us in the super- 
natural and our intelligence in the natural, but truth 
is never at contradiction with itself. 

* Sap. xL 23. t Psal. iv. 7. 

ART. VIII. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 327 

Again, God who has given our senses their proper 
action and means of apprehending, completes this 
gift by never permitting them to be deceived when 
rightly applied to their proper object ; and experience 
taken by itself, simple and anterior to reasoning, 
cannot mistake. These are propositions of philosophy, 
founded on these certain premisses that God himself 
is the author of our senses, and as a holy and 
infallible agent directs them to their true end 
and object ; these are simply first principles, and 
they who would take them from us, would take 
from us all process of inference, all reason. Some 
examples will make us clearly understand these 
propositions. My eye may make a mistake, judging 
a thing to be larger than it is ; but size is not 
the proper object of the eye, for it is common 
also to the touch and the hand. It can fall into 
error, again, by considering that movement is taking 
place where it is not ; as those who sail along the 
strand seem to see the trees and buildings move. 
But movement is not the proper object of my 
eye, touch has its part also therein. The eye can 
err, again, when it is not properly applied ; for if 
there be green or red glass between it and its 
objects, it will think these to be green or red when 
they are not so. 

If, moreover, you add reasoning and inferences to 
the judgments of the senses and of experience, do not 
now attribute your false conclusions to the actions 
of the senses or to experience, for they are no 
longer pure and simple, which was one of the con- 
ditions which I laid down ; it is the reasoning and 
deductions which you have added that have put 

328 The Catholic Controversy. [part 11. 

you wrong. Thus the eyes and the experience 
of those who saw, and saw experimentally in 
Our Lord the human form and haviour, were not 
deceived, for the fact was really so ; those went 
wrong who drew thence the consequence that he 
was not God. The senses which judge that there 
are on the altar the roundness, the whiteness, the 
taste and colour of bread are right, but the 
reasoning which concludes that the substance of 
bread is still there, is unsound and false. That 
has nothing to do with the senses, which take cog- 
nisance, not of the substance of things but of the 
accidents. In like manner, the experience which 
shows us that we do not know how these accidents 
stand without their natural substance is quite just, 
but if our judgment draw the conclusion that they 
do not so stand, it deceives itself and us. This 
is not the fault of experience, which has nothing 
to do with that conclusion. 

Experience, therefore, and the judgment of the 
senses are quite correct, but the reasoning which we 
make on them deceives us. Barring this, he who 
denies the correctness of the knowledge supplied by 
the senses and by experience, attacks and overthrows 
reason; for the foundation of all logical process 
depends on the data furnished by the senses and by 
experience. Now how entirely your ministers have 
gone against experience, sensible cognition, and natu- 
ral reason, I will make clear to you at once, provided 
that you do not reject the testimony of your own 

ABT. VIII. c. 11.3 The Rule of Faith. 329 



I HAVE put off the showing of the absurdities which 
are in the doctrine of our adversaries to the end of 
the treatise on the rules of faith, these absurdities 
being a consequence of their believing without rule 
and sailing without compass. And [put off showing] 
that they have not the efficacy of the doctrine of 
Catholicism ; for not only are they not Catholics, 
but cannot be, effecting the destruction of the body 
of Our Lord, instead of acquiring new members 
for it. 

When Luther, in his preface to his " Defence of the 
articles condemned by Leo," says that the Scriptures 
are very easy, intelligible and clear to each one, and 
that any one can see the truth there and discern 
amongst varying opinion which is the true which 
the false, is he not, I pray, going against the 
personal experience of everybody ? And when you 
have taken in this nonsense do you not know 
that the contrary is evident ? I know no man so 
learned as to dare swear that he knows the true 
sense, I do not say of the whole Scripture but of 
some part of it ; indeed I have never found one 
among you who understood the sense of one whole 

* In a detached note the Saint says: " A chapter must be composed 
on simplicity of faith and humility in believing." See Preface. [Tr.] 

330 The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

When Calvin,* or Bucer,t denies that we have any 
liberty in our will, not only for supernatural actions 
but even for natural ones and in merely human 
matters, does he not attack natural reason and all 
philosophy (as Calvin indeed confesses) and, at the 
same time, the experience both of yourselves, if you 
speak frankly, and of all the rest of men ? 

And when Luther says J that believing, hoping, 
loving are not operations and actions of our will, 
but simple passions outside the activity of the 
will, does he not ruin at one stroke all be- 
lieving, hoping, and loving, changing them into 
being believed, being hoped in, and being loved, 
besides contradicting the heart of man which knows 
well that by the grace of God itself believes, loves, 
and hopes ? 

Also when Luther says§ that infants in Baptism 
nave the use of their understanding and reason, and 
when the synod of Wittenberg says || that infants in 
Baptism have movements and inclinations like to the 
movements of faith and charity, and this without 
understanding : — is not this to mock God, nature, and 
experience ? 

And when it is said that " in sinning we are incited, 
pushed, necessitated by the will, ordinance, decree, 
and predestination of God," — is this not to blaspheme 
against all reason, and against the majesty of the 
supreme goodness ? Such is the fine theology of 

* histit, 1. i. c. xvi., 1. ii. cc. ii., iv, 

t De Concord., art. de lib. arbitr. 

X Operat in Psalm. 

§ Apud Cochl., ann. 1523. 

Ii Ann. 1536. L. 3 : Misceli. tract. 

ART. VIII. c. II.] The Rule of Faith, 331 

Zwingle, Calvin, and Beza.* " But," says Beaa, " you 
will say that they could not resist the will of God, 
that is, the decree; I acknowledge it: but as they 
could not so they would not : they could not wish 
otherwise, I own, as to the event and working {ener- 
giam), but yet the will of Adam was not forced." 
Goodness of God, I call you as my witness ! You have 
pushed me to do evil ; you have so decreed, ordained, 
and willed ; I could not act otherwise, I could not 
will otherwise, — what fault of mine is there ? God 
of my heart ! chastise my will, if it is able not to will 
evil and wills to will it ; but if it cannot help willing 
evil, and thou art the cause of its impossibility, what 
fault of mine can there be ? If this is not contrary 
to reason, I protest that there is no reason in the 

The law of God is impossible, according to Calvin 
and the others : t what follows, except that Our Lord 
is a tyrant who commands impossible things ? If it 
is impossible, why is it commanded ? 

Works, good as ever they may be, rather deserve 
hell than Paradise : shall then the justice of God, 
which will give to every one according to his works, 
give to every one hell ? 

This is enough, but the absurdity of absurdities, and 
the most horrible unreason of all is this : that while 
holding that the whole Church may have erred for 
a thousand years in the understanding of the Word of 
God, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin can guarantee that they 
understand it aright : this absurdity is greater when 

* Zw. de prud. 5, 6 : Calv. Jnstit. I. 17, 18 ; de Praed. ; Instruct, 
contra Lib. ; Beza contra Castal. 

+ Calv. mU. Sess. 6, cone. Tr. : Luther de lib. Chrut. 

332 The Catholic Controversy, [part a 

a mere wretched minister (ministrot), while preaching 
as a word of God that all the visible Church has erred, 
that Calvin and all men can err, dares to pick and 
choose amongst the interpretations of the Scripture 
that one which pleases him, and to certify and main- 
tain it as the Word of God : and you yourselves carry 
the absurdity still further when, having heard that 
everybody may err in matter of religion — even the 
whole Church — without trying to find for yourselves 
some other religion amongst a thousand sects, which 
all boast of rightly understanding the Word of God, 
and rightly preaching it, you believe so obstinately 
in the minister who preaches to you, that you will 
hear no more ? If everybody can err in the under- 
standing of the Scripture, why not you and your 
minister? I wonder that you do not always walk 
trembling and shaking : I wonder how you can live 
with so much assurance in the doctrine which you 
follow, as if you could not err, and yet you hold as 
certain that every one has erred and can err. 

The Gospel soars far above all the most elevated 
reasonings of nature ; it never goes against them, never 
injures them nor dissolves them : but these fancies of 
your evangelists obscure and destroy the light of 

ART. VIII. 0. iiL] The Rule of Faith. 333 



It is a saying full of pride and ambition amongst 
your ministers, and one which is ordinary with them, 
that we must interpret the Scriptures and test the 
exposition of them by the analogy of the faith. The 
simple people when they hear this analogy of the 
faith, think that it is some word of secret potency and 
cabalistic virtue ; and they wonderingly admire every 
interpretation which is given, provided that this word 
be brought into the field. In truth the ministers are 
right when they say that we must interpret the 
Scripture, and prove our expositions of it by the 
analogy of faith ; but they are wrong in not doing 
what they say. The poor people hear nothing but 
their bragging about this analogy of faith, and the 
ministers do nothing but corrupt, spoil, force it, and 
tear it to shreds. Let us look into this, I beg you. 
You say that the Scripture is easy to understand, pro- 
vided that one adjust it to the rule and proportion, 
or analogy, of the faith. But what rule of faith can 
they have who have no Scripture except one entirely 
glossed, wrested, and strained by interpretations, 
metaphors, metonymies ? If the rule is subject to 
irregularity, who shall regulate it ? And what analogy 
or proportion of faith can there be, if a man propor- 
tion the articles of faith with conceptions the most 
foreign to their true sense ? If the fact of proportion 
with the articles of faith is to serve you to decide 

334 l'^^ Catholic Controversy. [pabt n. 

upon doctrine and religion, leave the articles of faith 
in their natural shape; do not give them a form 
different from that which they have received from 
the Apostles. I leave you to guess what use the 
Symbol of the Apostles can be to me in interpreting 
the Scriptures, when you gloss it in such a way that 
you put me in greater difficulties about its sense than 
ever I was in about the Scriptures themselves. 

If any one ask how the same body of Our Lord 
can come to be in two places, I shall say that this is 
easy to God, and I shall confirm it by this reason of 
faith : / believe in God the Father Almighty. But if 
you gloss both the Scripture and the article of faith 
itself, how will you confirm your gloss ? At this 
rate there will be no first principle except your 
notions. If the analogy of faith be subject to your 
glosses and opinions, you must say so openly, that we 
may know what you are at, which will now be this — 
to interpret Scripture by Scripture and analogy, ad- 
justing everything to your own interpretations and 
ideas. I apply the whole question [of the Eeal 
Presence] * to the analogy of the faith : this explana- 
tion agrees perfectly with that first word of the Creed 
where Credo takes away all difficulties of human 
reason ; the omnipotentem strengthens me, the mention 
of creation heartens me ; — for why sliall he who 
made all things out of nothing, not make the body of 
Christ out of bread ? That name of Jesus comforts 
me, for his mercy and his will to do great things for 
me are there expressed. That he is the Son, consub- 
stantial with the Father,, proves to me his illimitable 
power. His being conceived of a Virgin, against the 

* See Preface. 

ART. vTii. c. III.] The Rule of Faith, 335 

course of nature ; his not disdaining to lodge within 
her for our sakes ; his being horn with penetration of 
dimension, an act which goes beyond and above the 
nature of a body — these things assure me both of his 
will and of his power. His dmth supports me ; — 
for he who died for us, what will he not do for us ? 
His se'pulchre cheers me, and his descent into hell ; — 
for I shall not doubt his descent into the obscurity of 
my body, &c. His resurrection gives me fresh life ; 
for this new penetration of the stone, the agility, 
subtlety, brightness, and impassibility of his body, 
are no longer according to the grosser laws which we 
conceive of. His ascension makes me rise to this 
faith ; — for if his body penetrate matter, raise itself, 
by his sole will, and place itself, without place, at the 
right hand of the Father, why shall it not, here below, 
be where seems good to him, and occupy space only 
as he wills it to do ? His being seated at the right 
hand of the Father shows me that everything is put 
under him, heaven, earth, distances, places, dimensions. 
T\idX from thence he shall come to judge the living and 
the dead, urges me to the belief of the illimitability of 
his glory, and [teaches me] therefore that his glory is 
not attached to place, but that wherever he goes he 
carries it with him ; — he is, then, in the most holy 
Sacrament without quitting his glory or his perfec- 
tions. That Holy Ghost, by whose operation he was 
conceived and born of a Virgin, can equally well by 
his operation effect this admirable work of Transub- 
stantiation. The Church, which is holy and cannot 
lead us into error, which is Catholic and therefore is 
not restricted to this miserable world, but is to extend 
in length from the Apostles, in breadth throughout 

S3^ The Catholic Controversy. [parth, 

the world, in depth as far as to Purgatory, in height 
to heaven, including all nations, all past ages, 
canonised saints, our forefathers of whom we have 
hope, prelates, councils old and recent — [she, through 
all these her members] sings in every place, Amen, 
Amen, to this holy belief. 

This is the perfect Communion of Saints, for it is 
the food common to angels, and sainted souls in 
Paradise, and ourselves ; it is the true bread of which 
all Christians participate. The forgiveness of sins^ the 
author of forgiveness being there, is confirmed; the 
seed of our resurrection sown, life everlasting bestowed. 
Where do you find contradiction in this holy analogy 
of faith ? So much the reverse, that this very belief 
in the most holy Sacrament, which in truth, reality, 
and substance, contains the true and natural body of 
Our Lord, is actually the abridgment of our faith, 
according to that of the Psalmist : ^ He hath made a 
memory [of his wonderful works']. holy and perfect 
memorial of the Gospel ! admirable summing up 
of our faith ! He who believes, Lord, in Your 
presence in this most holy Sacrament, as Your holy 
Church proposes it, has gathered and sucked the sweet 
honey of all the flowers of Your holy Eeligion : hardly 
can he ever fail in faith. 

But I return to you, gentlemen, and simply ask 
what passages you will any longer oppose to me against 
such clear ones as these — This is my hody. That 
the flesh profiteth nothing ? t — no, not yours or mine, 
which are but carrion, nor our carnal sentiments ; 
not mere flesh, dead, without spirit or life ; but that 
of the Saviour which is ever furnished with the life- 

* ex. 4. t John VI. 

ART. VIII. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith, 337 

giving Spirit, and with his Word. I say that it 
profits unto life eternal all who worthily receive it : 
what say you ? — that the words of Our Lord are spirit 
and life ? * — who denies it save yourselves, when you 
say they are but tropes and figures ? But what 
sense is there in this consequence : — the words of 
Our Lord are spirit and life, therefore they are not 
to be understood of his body ? And when he said : 
The Son of man shall be delivered up to ie mocked and 
scourged, &c.t (I take as examples the first that come), 
were his words not spirit and life ? — say then that 
he was crucified in figure. When he said : If there- 
fore you see the Son of man ascending vjhere he was 
before (John vi.), does it follow that he only ascended 
in figure ? And still these words are comprised 
among the rest, of which he said : They are spirit and 
life. Finally, in the Holy Sacrament, as in the holy 
words of our Lord, the spirit is there which vivifies 
the flesh, otherwise it would profit nothing ; but none 
the less is the flesh there with its life and its spirit. 
What further will you say ? — that this Sacrament is 
called bread ? So it is ; but as Our Lord explains : 
/ am the living bread (lb.) These are fully sufficient 
examples : — as for you, what can you show like 
these ? I show you an is, show me the is not, which 
you maintain, or the signifies. I have shown you the 
body J show me your effectual sign ; seek, turn, turn 
again, make your spirit spin as fast as you like, and 
you shall never find it. At the very most you will 
show that when the words are somewhat strained, a 
few phrases in the Scriptures may be found like those 
you pretend to find here ; but to esse from posse is a 

* lb. i Luke xviii. 32. 

III. y 

^;^S The Catholic Controversy. [parth. 

lame consequence : I say that you cannot make them 
fit; I say that if everybody takes them as he likes, 
the greater number will take them wrongly. But let 
us just see a piece of this work while it is being done. 
You produce for your belief : The luords which I speak 
are spirit and life ; and this you fasten on : As often 
as you shall eat this bread ; you add : Do this in com- 
memoration of me ; you bring up : Tou shall show forth 
the death of the Lord until he comes;* But me you 
shall not have always. But consider a little what 
reference these words have to one another. You 
adjust all this to the anomologyt of your faith, and 
how ? Our Lord is seated at the right hand, therefore 
he is not here. Show me the thread with which you 
sew this negative to this affirmative : — because a body 
cannot be in two places. Ah ! you said you would 
join your negative with analogy by the thread of 
Scripture : — where is this Scripture, that a body 
cannot be in two places ? Just observe how you 
mingle the profane employment of a merely human 
reason with the Sacred Word ? But, say you, Our 
Lord will come to judge the living and the dead from 
the right hand of his Father. What does this prove ? 
If it were necessary for him to come, in order to 
become present in the Holy Sacrament, your analogy 
would have some speciousness, though not even then 
any reality, — for when he does come to judge nobody 
says that it will be on earth ; the fire will precede. 
There is your analogy : in good earnest which has 
worked the better, you or I ? 

* I Cor. xi ; John xii. 

t kvofioKoyM, i.e., disproportion. A play on the word Analogy. 

ART. VIII. 0. III.] The Rule of Faiths 339 

If we let you interpret the Descent of Our Lord 
into hell as of the Sepulchre, or as of a fear of hell and 
of the pains of the damned, — the sanctity of the Church 
as the sanctity of an invisible and unknown Church, — 
its universality as that of a secret and hidden Church, 
— the Communion of Saints as simply a general bene- 
volence, — the remission of sins as only a non-imputa- 
tion ; — when you shall have thus proportioned the 
Creed to your judgment, it will certainly be in good 
proportion with the rest of your doctrine, but who 
does not see the absurdity ? The Creed, which is 
the instruction of the most simple, would be the most 
obscure doctrine in the world, and while it has to be 
the rule of faith, it would have to be regulated by 
another rule. The wicked walk round about.^ One 
infallible rule of our faith is this : God is All-mighty. 
He who says all excludes nothing, and you would 
regulate this rule, and would limit it so that it should 
not extend as far as absolute power, or the power of 
placing a body in two places, or of placing it in one 
without its occupying exterior space. Tell me, then 
— if the rule need regulation, who shall regulate it ? 
Similarly the Creed says that Our Lord descended into 
hell, and Calvin would rule that this is to be under- 
stood of an imaginary descent; somebody else refers 
it to the sepulchre. Is not this to treat the rule as 
a Lesbian one, and to make the level bend to the stone 
instead of cutting the stone by the level. Indeed as 
S. Clement t and S. Augustine;]; call it rule, so S, 

* Ps, xi. • 

t We do not find this passage in any authentic work of S. Clement 

X Serm. 213, alias 119. 

340 ^-^^^ Catholic Controversy, [partil 

Ambrose * calls it key. But if another key be re- 
quired to open this key where shall we find it ? Is 
it to be the fancy of your ministers, or what ? Will 
it be the Holy Spirit ? — but everybody will boast that 
he has a share in this. Good heavens ! into what 
labyrinths do they fall who quit the path of the 
Ancients ! I would not have you think me ignorant 
of this, that the Creed alone is not the whole rule 
and measure of faith. For both S. Ausfustinet and 
the great Vincent of LerinsJ also call the sense of 
the Church {sentiment Ecclesiastique) rule of our faith. 
The Creed alone says nothing openly of the Consub- 
stantiality, of the Sacraments, or of other articles of 
faith, but comprehends the whole faith in its root and 
foundation, particularly when it teaches us to believe 
the Church to be holy and Catholic ; — for by this it 
sends us to what the Church shall propose. But as 
you despise the whole of the doctrine of the Church, 
you also despise this noble, this notable and excellent 
part of it, which is the Creed, refusing belief in it 
until you have reduced it to the petty scale of your 
conceptions. Thus do you violate this holy measure 
and proportion which S. Paul requires to be followed, 
yea, even by the prophets themselves.^ 

* Appendix, Serm. 33. More probably belongs to S. Maximus of 
Turin. [Tr.] 

t Contra Ep. Fund 4, $. % Comm. c. ii. § i Cor. xiv 

ART. VIII. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith, 341 



Sailing thus then without needle, compass or rudder 
on the ocean of human opinions, you can expect 
nothing but a miserable shipwreck. Ah! I implore 
you, while this day lasts, while God presents you the 
opportunity, throw yourselves into the saving bark of 
a serious repentance, and take refuge on the happy 
vessel which is bound under full sail for the port of 

If there were nothing else, do you not recognise 
what advantages and excellences the Catholic doctrine 
has beyond your opinions ? The Catholic doctrine 
makes more glorious and magnificent the goodness and 
mercy of God, your opinions lower them. For example, 
is there not more mercy in establishing the reality of 
his body for our food than in only giving the figure 
and commemoration thereof and the eating by faith 
alone ? All seek the things that are their oiun, not the 
things that are Jesus Christ's (Phil. ii. 21). Is it not 
more honourable to concede to the might of Jesus 


* This cliapter seems to fulfil the design referred to in the following 
detached note of the Saint's : " A chapter is also to be composed on the 
greater glory of the Gospel in the faith of Catholics than in the faith 
of the heretics. Where reference is to be made to what was said at 
the end of the chapter de visibili [Pt. L c. 6.], viz., that in the visible 
Church the eye of mind and of body is fed, in the invisible neither." 

342 The Catholic Controversy, [paktil 

Christ the power to make the Blessed Sacrament, as 
the Church believes it, and to his goodness the will to 
do so, than the contrary ? Without doubt it is more 
glorious to Our Lord. Yet because our mind cannot 
comprehend it, in order to uphold our own mind, all 
seek the things that are their own, not the things that are 
Jesus Christ's. Is it not more, in justifying man, to 
embellish his soul with grace, than without embellish- 
ing it to justify him by a simple toleration (connivence) 
or non-imputation ? Is it not a greater favour to 
make man and his works agreeable and good than 
simply to take man as good without his being so in 
reality ? Is it not more to have left seven Sacraments 
for the justification and sanctification of the sinner 
than to have left only two, one of which serves for 
nothing and the other for little ? Is it not more to 
have left the power of absolving in the Church than 
to have left it not ? Is it not more to have left a 
Church visible, universal, of striking aspect, perpetual, 
than to have left it little, secret, scattered and liable 
to corruption ? Is it not to value more the travails 
of Jesus Christ when we say that a single drop of his 
blood suffices to ransom the world, than to say that 
unless he had endured the pains of the damned he 
would have done nothing ? Is not the mercy of God 
more magnified in giving to his saints the knowledge 
of what takes place here below, the honour of praying 
for us, in making himself ready to accept their inter- 
cession, in having glorified them as soon as they died, 
than in making them wait and keeping them in sus- 
pense, according to Calvin's words, until the judgment, 
in making them deaf to our prayers and remaining him- 
self inexorable to theirs. This will be seen more clearly 

ART. VIII. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith, 343 

in our treatment of particular points. Our doctrine 
[then] makes more admirable the power of God in the 
Sacrament of the Eucharist, in justification and inherent 
justice, in miracles, in the infallible preservation of 
the Church, in the glory of the Saints. 

The Catholic doctrine cannot have its source in any 
passion, because nobody follows it save on this condi- 
tion, of captivating his intelligence, under the authority 
of the pastors. It is not proud, since it teaches not 
to believe self but the Church. What shall I say 
further ? Distinguish the voice of the dove from that 
of the crow. Do you not see this Spouse, who has 
nought but honey and milk under her tongue, who 
breathes only the greater glory of her Beloved, his 
honour and obedience to him ? Ah ! then, gentlemen, 
be willing to be placed as living stones in the walls 
of the heavenly Jerusalem. Take yourselves out of 
the hands of these men who build without a rule, who 
do not adjust their conceptions to the faith, but the 
faith to their conceptions. Come and offer yourselves 
to the Church, who will place you, unless you prevent 
her, in the heavenly building, according to the true 
rule and proportion of faith. For never shall any one 
have a place there above who has not been worked 
and laid, according to rule and square, here below. 

[The following detached notes of the Saint bear 
upon the matter of the foregoing chapter. Tr.] 

All the ancient sacrifices of a farinaceous nature 
were as it were the condiment of the bloody sacrifices. 
So the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is as it were the 
condiment of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and with most 
excellent reason united to it. 

344 The Catholic Controversy, [pabtil 

The Church is a mountain, heresy a valley : for 
heretics go down, from the Church that errs not to an 
erring one, from truth to shadow. 

Ismael, who signified the Jewish synagogue (Gal. iv), 
was cast out when he would play with Isaac, that is, 
the Catholic Church. How much more heretics, &c. 

That of Isaias (liv. 17) agrees excellently with the 
Church as against heresy : No weapon that is formed 
against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that 
resisteth thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is 
the inheritance of the servants of the Lord^ and their 
justice with me, saith the Lord. 

Cburcb Doctrines anb Jnetitutiona. 


These two fundamental faults into which your ministers 
have led you, namely, the having abandoned the 
Church and the having violated all the true rules of 
the Christian religion, make you altogether inexcusable, 
gentlemen. For they are so gross that you cannot 
but know them, and so important that either of the 
two suffices to make you lose true Christianity : since 
neither faith without the Church nor the Church 
without faith can save you, any more than the eye 
without the head or the head without the eye could 
see the light. Whoever would separate you from 
union with the Church should be suspected by you, 
and whoever should so greatly infringe the holy rules 
of the faith ought to be avoided and disregarded, 
whatever his appearance might be, whatever he might 
allege. You should not have so lightly believed. 
Had you been prudent in your way of acting you 
would have seen that it was not the Word of God they 
brought forward but their own ideas veiled under 

34^ The Catholic Controversy. ^ [pabthi. 

words of Scripture, and you would have known well 
that so rich a dress was never made for covering so 
worthless a body as this heresy is. 

For, by supposition, let us say that there was never 
Church, nor Council, nor pastor, nor doctor, since the 
Apostles, and that the Holy Scripture contains only 
those books which it pleases Calvin, Beza, and Martyr 
to acknowledge; that there is no infallible rule for 
understanding it rightly, but that it is at the mercy of 
the notions of everybody who likes to maintain that 
he is interpreting Scripture by Scripture, and by the 
analogy of the faith, — as one might say he would get 
to understand Aristotle by Aristotle and by the 
analogy of philosophy. Only let us acknowledge that 
this Scripture is divine. And I maintain before all 
equitable judges that if not all, at least those amongst 
you who had some knowledge and ability, are inexcus- 
able, and cannot defend their choice of religion from 
lightness and rashness. 

And here is what I come to. The ministers will 
only fight on Scripture ; I am willing. They will 
only have such parts of Scripture as they chose ; I 
ageee. And still I say that the belief of the Catholic 
Church beats them completely, since she has more 
passages in her favour than the contrary opinion has, 
and her passages are more clear, more simple, more 
pure, interpreted more reasonably, more conclusive, and 
more apt. This I believe to be so certain that every 
one may come to know and recognise it. But if we 
would show this in minute detail we should never 
finish ; it will be quite enough, I think, to show it in 
some of the chief articles. 

It is this then that I profess to do in this Third 

iNTROD.] Church Doctrines, <2fc. 347 

Part, in which I shall attack your ministers on the 
Sacraments in general, and in particular on those of 
the Eucharist, Confession, and Marriage ; on the honour 
and invocation of the saints; on the propriety of 
ceremonies in general ; then in particular on the 
merit of good works, on justification, and on indul- 
gences. In this I will employ nought but the pure 
and simple Word of God; with which alone I will 
make you see, by examples, your fault so clearly that 
you will be bound to repent of it. And meantime 
I beg of you, that if you see me engage, and at length 
overcome the enemy with Scripture alone, you will 
then represent to yourselves that great and honourable 
succession of martyrs, pastors, and doctors, who have 
testified by their teaching and at the price of their 
blood that this doctrine for which we now fight was 
the holy, the original, the Apostolic ; which will be as 
it were a superfluity of victory ; so that if we found 
ourselvas on an equality with our enemies by Scrip- 
ture alone, the antiquity, the agreement, the holiness 
of our authors would still make us triumph. And in 
doing this I will ever adjust the sense and bearing of 
the Scriptures which I shall produce to the rules which 
I have established in the Second Part, although my 
chief design is only to give you a proof of the hollow- 
ness of your ministers, who do nothing but cry out 
Holy Scripture, Holy Scripture, yet all they effect is 
to contradict its clearest statements. In the assembly 
of the Princes which took place at Spires, in the year 
1526, the Protestant ministers wore these letters on 
the right sleeve of their dress : V. D. M. I. M., by 
which they meant to declare Verhum Domini manet 
in ceternum [the Word of the Lord remaineth for ever]. 

34^ The Catholic Controversy. [partiu 

Would you not say that they had a monopoly of Holy 
Scripture ? They quote indeed morsels of it, and on 
every occasion, " in public and in private," says the 
great Lirinensis,* " in their discourses, in their books, 
in the streets, and at banquets. . . . Eead the works 
of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of 
Jovinian, and of those other pests : you will see a great 
heap of examples, and scarcely a page which is not 
painted and adorned with sentences out of the Old 
and the New Testament. . . . They act like those do 
who, wishing to get little children to take some bitter 
potion, rub and cover with honey the rim of the cup, 
in order that infant simplicity tasting the sweet first 
may not be frightened of the bitter." But he who 
sounds the depths of their doctrine will see clearly as 
the day that it is but a painted sham, like what the devil 
brought forward when he tempted Our Lord. For he 
quoted Scripture to his purpose. " What," says the 
same Lirinensis,t " will he not do with wretched man, 
when he dares to attack with words of Scripture the very 
Lord of majesty ? Let us look closely at the doctrine of 
this passage. . . . For as then the head of one party 
spoke to the head of the other, so now members speak 
to members ; namely, the members of the devil to the 
members of Jesus Christ, unbelievers to the faithful, 
the sacrilegious to the religious — in a word, heretics to 
Catholics." But as the head answered the head, so 
can we members answer the non-members. Our head 
repulsed their chief with passages of the Scripture, 
let us repulse them in like fashion, and by solid and 
plain consequences, deduced from Holy Scripture, let 
us show their falseness and deceitfulness in covering 

* Comm. xx^v. + lb. xxxviL 

ART. 1. 0. L] Church Doctrines, &c, 349 

their fancies with the words of Scripture. This is 
what I intend to do here, but briefly, and I protest 
that I will produce most faithfully what seems to me 
to be most in their favour, and convict them from 
the Scripture itself. Thus will you come to see that 
though they and we use and fight with the Scripture, 
yet we have the reality and right usage of them, and 
they only have the vain and illusive appearance. So 
both Aaron and the magicians changed their rods into 
living serpents, but the rod of Aaron devoured the 
rods of the others. 

AETICLE I. ^i ^ "^^^ f^ :% 

OF THE SACRAMENTS. \ ^- ^'^^*S}^^, 



This word Sacrament is explicitly used in Scripture 
in the meaning which it has in the Catholic Church, 
since S. Paul, speaking of marriage, calls it clearly 
and precisely Sacrament.* But we shall see this by 
and by. It is enough now, against the insolence of 
Zwinglet and others who would reject this name, 
that the whole ancient Church has used it. For it is 
not by any greater authority that the words Trinity, 
consubstantial, person, and a hundred others, have 
been received in the Church as holy and legitimate. 
But it is a most unprofitable and foolish rashness to 

* Eph. V. t De verd etfals. relig. 

350 The Catholic Controversy. [parthi. 

attempt to change the Ecclesiastical words which 
antiquity has left us : to say nothing of the danger 
that there might be, after changing the words, of 
going on to the change of the meaning and belief, — as 
we see to be ordinarily the aim of these innovators 
on words. Now since the pretended reformers for the 
most part, though not without grumbling, leave this 
word in use in their books, let us enter into the 
difficulties we have with them over the causes and 
effects of the Sacraments, and let us see how they in 
this point despise the Scripture and the other rules 
of faith. 



Let us begin with this : The Catholic Church holds 
as form of the Sacraments consecratory words ; the 
pretended ministers, wishing to reform this form, 
say * that the consecrating words are charms, and 
that the true form of the Sacraments is preaching. 
What do the ministers produce from Holy Scripture 
for the support of this reformation ? Two passages 
only as far as any one knows ; the one from S. Paul, 
the other from S. Matthew. S. Paul, speaking of the 
Church, says t that Our Lord sanctified it, cleansing it 
hy the laver of water in the word of life ; and Our Lord 
himself, in S. Matthew,^ gives this commandment to 
his disciples : Teach all nations, baptizing them in the 

* Calv. Instit. iv. 14 ; in Eph, v. Beza in sum. doctr. de re sacram. 
t Eph. V. 26. + Ult. 19. 

ART. 1. 0. II.] Church Doctrines, &c, 351 

na^ne of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. Two very clear passages certainly to prove 
that preaching is the true form of the Sacraments ! 
But whoever told them that there was no other 
" word of life " than preaching ? I maintain, on the 
contrary, that this holy invocation : / baptize thee in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, is also a word of life ; as S. Chrysostom and 
Theodoret say.* Just as the other prayers and the 
other invocations of God's name are ; which, however, 
are not sermons. And if S. Jerome, t following the 
mystical sense, would have preaching to be a sort of 
cleansing water, he does not therefore set himself 
against the other Fathers who have understood the 
laver of water to be Baptism precisely, and the word 
of life to be the invocation of the most holy Trinity, 
in order to interpret the passage of S. Paul by the 
other of S. Matthew : Teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost. And as to this latter, nobody ever 
denied that instruction should precede Baptism in the 
case of those who are capable of it, according to the 
words of Jesus Christ, who places the instruction first 
and the Baptism afterwards. But keeping within the 
same words, we place the previous instruction by 
itself, as a disposition requisite to him who has the 
use of reason, and Baptism also apart : so that the 
one cannot be the form of the other. Indeed Bap- 
tism would rather be the form of preaching than 
preaching of Baptism, if one must be the form of the 
other ; since the form cannot precede but must follow 
the matter, and preaching precedes Baptism, while 
* In Eph. V. t In idem. 

352 The Catholic Controversy. [part m 

Baptism follows upon the preaching. Wherefore 
S. Augustine would not have spoken correctly when 
he said : " the word comes to the element and the 
Sacrament is made ; " * for he would rather have had 
to say : the element comes to the word. 

These two passages then are wholly inapplicable to 
your reformed teaching ; yet they are all you have. 

At the same time your pretensions would be some- 
what more tolerable if we had not in the Scripture 
contrary reasons more express beyond all comparison 
than yours are. They are these. He who helieves 
and is baptized : do you see this belief which springs 
in us by preaching separated from Baptism ? — they 
are then two distinct things, preaching and Baptism. 
Who doubts but that S. Paul catechised and instructed 
in the faith many Corinthians who were baptized ? 
But if instruction and preaching were the form of 
Baptism, S. Paul was not right in saying : t / give 
God thanks that I baptized none of you but Crispus and 
Caius, &c. For to give the form to a thing, is it not 
to do it ? The case is made stronger still in that S. 
Paul separates baptizing from preaching : Christ sent 
me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. And to 
show that the Baptism is Christ's, not his who 
administers it, he does not say : are you baptized in 
the preaching of Paul ? but rather : are you baptized 
in the name of Paid ? — showing that though preaching 
goes before still it is not of the essence of Baptism, 
as if the Baptism were to be attributed to the preacher 
and catechist in the same way that it is attributed 
to him whose name is invoked in it. 

Certainly any one who nearly examines the first 

* In Joan, Ixxx. t i Cor. i. 14. 

ART. 1. 0. II.] Church Doctrines^ &c. 353 

Baptism administered after Pentecost * will see as 
clearly as the day that preaching is one thing and 
Baptism another. Wlun they had heard these things 
— see on the one hand the preaching — they had com- 
punction in their hearts, and said to Peter and the rest 
of the Apostles : JVhat shall we do, men brethren ? 
But Peter to them : do penance (said he), and he 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of your sins : — see on the other hand 
the Baptism, put by itself. One may see as much 
in the Baptism of that pious eunuch of Ethiopia 
(Acts viii.), in that of S. Paul (lb. ix), in which there 
was no preaching, and in that of the good and 
religious Cornelius (lb. x.) 

And as to the most holy Eucharist, which is the 
other Sacrament which the ministers make pretence 
of receiving, — where do they ever find that Our Lord 
made use of preaching ? S. Paul teaches the Corin- 
thians how the Supper should be celebrated, but we 
do not find that there is any command to preach; 
and in order that nobody should doubt but that the 
rite he was expounding was legitimate, he says that 
he had so learnt it from Our Lord : For I have received 
of the Lord that which also I delivered to you.lf Our 
Lord indeed made an admirable discourse, related by 
S. John ; but this was not for the mystery of the 
Supper, which was already completed. 

We do not say that it is not becoming to instruct 
the people about the Sacraments conferred upon them, 
but only that this instruction is not the form of the 
Sacraments. So that if in the institution of these 
divine mysteries, and in the very practice of the 

* Acts ii. 37, ^8. f i Cor. xi. 23. 


354 The Catholic Controversy. [parthi. 

Apostles, we find a distinction between preaching and 
the Sacraments, by what authority shall we confound 
them together ? 

In this point, then, according to the Scriptures, 
we are absolutely victorious, and the ministers are 
convicted of violating the Scriptures, since they would 
change the essence of the Sacraments contrarily to 
their institution. 

Again, they violate Tradition, the authority of the 
Church, of Councils, of the Popes, and of the Fathers, 
who have all believed and do believe that the Baptism 
of little children is true and legitimate. But how 
would we have preaching employed therein ? Infants 
do not understand what one says to them ; they are 
not capable of using reason; what is the use of in- 
structing them ? We might indeed preach before 
them, but it would be of no use ; for their under- 
standing is not yet open to receive instruction, as 
instruction ; it touches them not, nor can it be applied 
to them, — what effect then can it have on them ? 
The Baptism therefore would be vain, since it would be 
without form, and therefore the form of Baptism is not 
preaching. Luther answers * that infants do feel the 
actual movements of faith, by preaching. This is to 
violate and belie experience and also common sense. 

Further, the greater part of the Baptisms which 
are administered in the Catholic Church are adminis- 
tered without any preaching : they are therefore not 
true Baptisms, since the form is lacking to them. 
Why then do you not rebaptize those who go from 
our Church to yours ? It would be an anabaptism. 

So then behold how, according to the rules of the 
* Contra Coch. an. 1523. 

ART. I. c. II.] Church Doctrines, &c. 355 

faith, and principally according to Holy Scripture, 
your ministers err, when they teach you that preach- 
ing is the form of the Sacraments. But let us see 
if what we believe be more conformable to the Holy 
Word. We say that the form of the Sacraments 
is a consecratory word, a word of benediction or 
invocation. Is there anything so clear in Scripture ? 
Tecicli all nations, hajptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Is not 
this form — in the name of the Father — invocative ? 
Certainly the same S. Peter who says to the Jews : * 
Do jpenance and he baptized every one of yotc in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the ^'emission of your sins, says 
shortly afterwards to the lame man at the Beautiful 
Gate of the Temple : In the name of Jesus Christ of 
Nazarethj rise iip and walk. Who does not see that 
this last prayer is invocative, and why not the first, 
which is in substance the same ? So S. Paul does 
not say : The chalice of preaching of which we preach 
is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? 
— but, on the contrary : The chalice of benediction 
which we bless.f They consecrated it then and blessed 
it. So at the Council of Laodicea (c. 25): "The 
deacon may not bless the chalice.'* S. Denis calls 
them consecratory ,J and in his description of the 
Liturgy or Mass, he does not mention preaching, so 
far was he from considering it to be the form of the 
Eucharist. In the Council of Laodicea, where the 
order of the Mass is spoken of, nothing is said of 
preaching, which was, therefore, a thing of propriety, 
but not of the essence of this mystery. Justin Martyr 
{Apol. I. 65), describing the ancient office which the 

* Acts ii. t I Cor. x. i6. + De Eccl. Hier. ult. 

35^ The Catholic Controversy, [parthi. 

Christians performed on Sundays, amongst other things 
says that after the general prayers they offered bread, 
wine, and water ; then the prelate made earnest prayers 
and thanksgivings \e,ucliaTistias\ to God ; the people 
gave thanks, saying, Amen : " these things being 
consecrated, with the Eucharist, every one participates, 
and the same things are given to the Deacons, to be 
carried to the absent." * Several things are noticeable 
here : water was mingled with the wine, they offered, 
they consecrated, they carried it to the sick. But if our 
reformers had been there, it would have been necessary 
to carry the preaching to the sick, or nothing would 
have been done. For as John Calvin says : t " The 
simple explanation of the mystery to the people, 
makes a dead element begin to be a sacrament." S. 
Gregory of Nyssa says : J " I consider that now the 
bread is sanctified by the Word of God ; " and — he is 
speaking of the Sacrament of the Altar, — " we be- 
lieve that it is changed into the body of the Word." 
And afterwards he says that this change is made " in 
virtue of the benediction." " How," says the great 
S. Ambrose,^ " can that which is bread become the 
body of Christ ? — by consecration : " and further on : 
"It was not the body of Christ before consecration, 
but, after the consecration, I tell thee it now is the 
body of Christ ; " — and you may see him at great 
length. But I reserve myself on this subject for 
when we shall be treating of the holy Mass. 

* We translate the Saint's quotation as it stands. In the text of 
S. Justin the word eucharista is certainly used in a technical sense. 
He speaks particularly of " the bread, wine, and water in which thanks- 
giving (or eucharist) is made." [Tr.] 

t In Ep. ad Eph. v. X Omt Catech. mag. cap. 37. 

§ De Sac. iv. 14, 16. 

&RT. Lc. III.] Church Doctrines y &c. 357 

I would finish with this signal sentence of S. 
Augustine : "^^ " Paul could preach the Lord Jesus 
Christ by signs of three kinds ; in one way by his 
tongue, in another by an Epistle, in a third by the 
Sacrament of his body and blood: but neither his 
tongue nor his ink, nor significant sounds uttered 
by his tongue, nor the signs of letters traced on 
parchments do we say to be the body and blood of 
Christ, but that only which, taken from the fruits 
of the earth and consecrated by mystic prayer, we 
duly receive." And if S. Augustine says : t " Whence 
such a power in water that touching the body it 
should wash the heart, unless by the effect of the 
word, not inasmuch as it is said but inasmuch as 
it is believed : " — we say nothing different. For in 
truth the words of benediction and sanctification with 
which we form and perfect the Sacraments, have no 
virtue save when uttered under the general intention 
and belief of the Church. For if any one said them 
without this intention, they would indeed be spoken, but 
for nothing, because it is " not what is said but what 
is believed," &c. 



I HAVE never been able to find any proof taken from 

Scripture of the opinion which your preachers have 

on this point. They say that though the minister 

* De. Tiin. iii. + In Joan. Ixxx. 

35^ The Catholic Controversy. [parthi. 

may have no intention of effecting the Supper or 
baptizing, but simply acts in mockery or in joke, yet 
still, provided he does the exterior action of the 
Sacrament, the Sacrament is completed.* 

All this is said without reason given, without bring- 
ing forward anything but certain consequences un- 
supported by no word of God, mere quibbles. On 
the contrary, the Council of Florence t and that of 
Trent J declare that if any one says that at least the 
intention of doing what the Church does is not 
required in the ministers when they confer the 
Sacraments, he is anathema. These are the words 
of the Council of Trent. The Council does not say 
that it is necessary to have the particular intention 
of the Church (for otherwise Calvinists, who have no 
intention in Baptism of taking away original sin, 
would not baptize rightly since the Church has that 
intention) but only the intention of doing in general 
what the Church does when she baptizes, without 
particularising or determining the what or the how. 

Again, the Council does not say that it is neces- 
sary to mean to do what the Church of Kome does, 
but only in general what the Church does, without 
particularising which is the true Church. Yea if a 
man, thinking that the pretended Church of Geneva 
was the true Church, should limit his intention to 
the intention of the Church of Geneva, he would 
indeed be in error if ever man was in error, in his 
knowledge of the true Church ; but his intention 
would be sufficient in this point, since, although it 
would point to the idea of a counterfeit Church, still 

* Luther in Ccvp. Bah. de Bapt ; Calv. in Ant. 7. 
t lu lubtr. Arm. + Sess. vii. 11. 

ART. I. am.] Church Doctrines, &c. 359 

it would only have its real significance in the idea of 
the true Church, and the error would only be material, 
not, as our Doctors say, formal. 

Further, it is not required that we have this inten- 
tion actually, when we confer the Sacrament, but it 
is enough that we can say with truth that we are 
performing such and such ceremony, and saying such 
and such word, — as pouring water, saying : I baptize 
thee in the name of the Father, &c. — with the inten- 
tion of doing what true Christians do, and what Our 
Lord has commanded, although at the moment we 
may not be attentive to this or thinking of it. As 
it is enough to enable me to say, I am preaching for 
the service of God and the salvation of souls, if 
when I begin to get ready I have that intention, 
although when I am in the pulpit I may think of 
what I have to say and be keeping this in memory, 
thinking no more of that first intention : or as it is 
with one who has resolved to bestow a hundred 
crowns for the love of God, then goes out of his 
house to do it, and thinking of other things distributes 
that sum ; for although he keep not his thoughts 
actually addressed to God, yet it cannot be said that 
his intention is not on God, by virtue of his first 
determination, nor that he is not doing this work of 
charity deliberately and intentionally. Such intention 
at least is required, and also suffices, for the conferring 
of the Sacraments. 

Now that the proposition of the Council is made 
clear, let us go on to see whether it is, like that of 
our adversaries, without foundation in Scripture. 
One cannot reasonably doubt but that to perform 
the Lord's Supper, or Baptism, it is necessary to do 

360 The Catholic Controversy, [part m. 

what Our Lord has commanded to this end, and not 
only to do it but to do it in virtue of this command- 
ment and institution ; — for these actions might be 
done in virtue of another commandment than Our 
Lord's ; as, for instance, if a man were asleep and 
baptized in a dream, or if he were drunk. The words 
indeed would be there and the matter, but they would 
have no power, as not proceeding from the command 
of him who could render them vigorous and effective. 
Just as not all that a judge says and writes are 
judicial sentences, but only what he says as a judge. 
Now how could one make a difference between 
sacramental actions done in virtue of the command- 
ment which makes them fertile, and these same actions 
done for another end ? Questionless the difference 
can only be in the intention with which one does 
them. It is necessary then that not only should the 
words be pronounced, but also that they should be 
pronounced with the intention of obeying the com- 
mand of Our Lord : — in the Supper, — Do this ; in 
Baptism, — Baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But, to speak 
plainly, is not this command, do this, addressed 
properly to the minister of the Sacrament ? Without 
doubt. Now it is not said simply do this, but, do this 
for a commemoration of me. How can one do this 
sacred action in commemoration of Our Lord, without 
having the intention of thereby doing what Our 
Lord has commanded, or at least of doing what 
Christians the disciples of Our Lord do ; in order 
that if not immediately, at least by means of Christ- 
tians or of the. Church, this action may be done in 
commemoration of Our Lord ? I think it is impossible 

ART. I. c. III.] Church Doctrines, &c. 361 

to imagine that a man can perform the Supper in 
commemoration of Our Lord if he have not the 
intention of doing what Our Lord has commanded, 
or at least of doing what those do who do it in 
commemoration of Our Lord. It is then not enough 
to do what Our Lord has commanded when he says 
do this; but we must do it for the intention that 
Our Lord has commanded ; that is, in commemoration 
of him; if not with this intention in particular yet 
with it in general, if not immediately yet at least 
mediately, meaning to do what the Church does, and 
she having the intention of doing what Our Lord has 
done and commanded. So that one refers one's inten- 
tion to that of the Spouse, which is accommodated to 
that of the Beloved. In a similar way, Our Lord 
does not say that we are to say these words, / baptize 
theCy simply, but commanded that the whole action 
of Baptism should be done in the name of the Father. 
So that it is not enough to say in the name of the 
Father^ but the washing or aspersion itself must be 
done in the name of the Father, and this authority 
must give life and power not only to the word but 
also to the whole action of the Sacrament, which of 
itself would have no supernatural virtue. Now how 
can an action be done in the name of God which is 
done in mockery of God ? In truth the action of 
Baptism does not so much depend on the words that 
it cannot be done with a power and an authority 
quite contrary to the words, if the heart which is the 
mover of words and action address it to a contrary 
intention. Yea more, for these words in the name 
of the Father, &c., can be said in the name of the 
enemy of the Father ; as these words, in truth, can be, 

362 The Catholic Controversy, [partih. 

and often are, said in lying. If then Our Lord does 
not simply command that we do the action of Baptism, 
nor simply say the words, but that we do the action 
and say the words in the name of the Father, &c. ; we 
must have at least the general intention of performing 
the Baptism in virtue of the command of Our Lord, 
in his name, and for him. And as for absolution, 
that the intention is required there is still more 
expressly stated. WTiose sins you shall forgive they are 
forgiven them."^ I leave this to their consideration. 

And it is in this connection that S. Augustine 
says : t " Whence is there such power in water that 
touching the body it should wash the heart except by 
the action of the word, not inasmuch as it is said but 
inasmuch as it is believed ? " — that is, the words of 
themselves being pronounced without any intention 
or belief have no virtue, but being said with power 
and faith, and according to the general intention of 
the Church, they have this salutary effect. And if 
it is found in history that some Baptisms given in 
sport have been approved, we must not think it 
strange, because one can do many things in play, and 
yet have the intention of truly doing what one has 
seen done. But we say that is done in sport which 
is done out of season and indiscreetly, when not done 
by malice or involuntarily. 

[The following detached notes of the Saint bear 
upon the matter of this Third Part. Tr.] 

On the Episcopal blessing with the sign of the 
cross we find in the life of S. Hilarion (fol. 29): 
Besalutatis omnibus, manuque eis henedicens. 

* John XX. 23. + See end of last chapter. [Tr.] 

ART. II. iNTROD.] Cktcrck Doctrifies, &c, 363 

On the intercession of Saints we must not forget 
the saying of Luther, which he wrote to George Duke 
of Saxony (an. 1526 apud Coch.) : Initio rogabo 
'prceterea et certissime impetraho remissionem apud 
Domimcm meum J. C, super omnibus quoecumque II. 
Clem, vestra co7itra verbum ejus facit ac fecit. I ask 
you, if this monk &c. [how much more men of 
holiness might beseech God] ? 

On the veneration of the Saints, or of the Pope, 
that must not be forgotten which he said to the King 
of England in a letter of the year 1525, found in 
Cochlaeus in the acts of the year 26. Quare his 
litteris prosterno me pedibus majestatis tuce quantum 
possum humillime. 




r^ '^•''■^^' h>,:. 

The Catholic Church has been accused in our age of 
superstition in the prayer which she makes for the 
faithful departed, inasmuch as by this she supposes 
two truths which, it is maintained, do not exist, 
namely : that the departed are in punishment and 
need, and that they can be helped. Whereas, the 
departed are either damned or saved ; the damned are 
in pain, but it is irremediable ; and the saved enjoy 
perfect bliss: — so the latter have no need and the 
former have no means of receiving help; wherefore 

364 The Catholic Controversy. [part hl 

it is useless to pray to God for the departed. Such 
is the summing up of the accusation. It ought surely 
to suffice anybody who wishes to frame a right 
judgment of this accusation to know that the accusers 
were private persons and the accused the universal 
body of the Church. But still, as the temper of our 
age has led to the submitting all things, however 
sacred, religious, and authoritative they may be, to the 
control and censure of everybody, many persons of 
honour and eminence have taken the cause of the 
Church in hand to defend it, considering that they 
could not better employ their piety and learning than 
in the defence of her, at whose hands they had re- 
ceived all their spiritual good, — Baptism, Christian 
doctrine, and the Scriptures themselves. Their reasons 
are so convincing that if they were properly balanced 
and weighed against those of the accusers their 
validity would at once be recognised. But unhappily, 
sentence has been given without the party being 
heard. Have we not reason, all we who are domestics 
and children of the Church, to make ourselves appel- 
lants, and to complain of the partiality of the judges, 
leaving on one side for the present their incom- 
petence ? We appeal then from the judges not in- 
structed to themselves instructed, and from judgments 
given, the parties not heard, to judgments, parties 
heard. Let us beg all those who wish to judge of 
this difference to consider our allegations and proofs 
so much the more attentively as there is question not 
of the condemnation of the accused party who cannot 
be condemned by her inferiors, but of the condemna- 
tion or salvation of the judges. 

ART. II. c. I.] Church Doctrines, &c. 365 



We maintain, then, that ,we may pray for the faithful 
departed, and that the prayers and good works of the 
living greatly relieve them and are profitable to them : 
— for this reason, that all those who die in the 
grace of God, and consequently in the number of the 
elect, do not go to Paradise at the very first moment, 
but many go to Purgatory, where they suffer a temporal 
punishment, from which our prayers and good works 
can help and serve to deliver them. There lies the 
point of our difference. 

We agree that the blood of Our Eedeemer is the 
true purgatory of souls ; for in it are cleansed all the 
souls in the world ; whence S. Paul speaks of it, in the 
1st of Hebrews, as making purgation of sins. Tribu- 
lations also are a purgatory, by which our souls are 
rendered pure, as gold is refined in the furnace. The 
furnace trieth the potter's vessels, and the trial of afflic- 
tion Just men* Penance and contrition again form a 
certain purgatory, as David said of old in the 50th 
Psalm : Thou shalt wash me, Lord, with hyssop, and 
I shall he cleansed. It is well known also that Bap- 
tism in which our sins are washed away can be again 
called a purgatory, as everything can be that serves 
to purge away our offences : but here we take Purga- 
tory for a place in which after this life the souls which 
leave this world before they have been perfectly 
cleansed from the stains which tliey have contracted — 
since nothing can enter Paradise which is not pure 
* Ecclus. xxvii. 

366 The Catholic Controversy, [pabthl 

and undefiled — are detained in order to be washed 
and purified. And if one would know why this place 
is called simply Purgatory more than are the othei 
means of purgation above-named, the answer will be, 
that it is because in that place nothing takes place 
but the purgation of the stains which remain at the 
time of departure out of this world, whereas in Bap- 
tism, Penance, tribulations, and the rest, not only is 
the soul purged from its imperfections, but it is 
further enriched with many graces and perfections ; 
whence the name of Purgatory has been limited to 
that place in the other world which, properly speak- 
ing, is for no purpose but the purification of souls. 
And agreeing as to the blood of Our Lord, we so fully 
acknowledge the virtue thereof, that we protest by all 
our prayers that the purgation of souls, whether in 
this world or in the other, is made solely by its 
application : — more jealous of the honour due to this 
precious medicine than those who so highly value it 
that they undervalue the using of it. Therefore by 
Purgatory we understand a place where souls for a 
time are purged of the spots and imperfections they 
carry with them from this mortal life. 



It is not an opinion adopted lightly — this article of 
Purgatory. The Church has long maintained thia 

AKT. IT. c. 11.] Church Doctrines, &c, 367 

belief to all and against all, and it seems that the first 
who impugned it was Aerius, an Arian heretic, as 
S. Epiphanius testifies (Hser. 75), and S. Augustine 
(Hser. 53), and Socrates (ii. 35) — about twelve hun- 
dred years ago. Afterwards came certain persons 
who called themselves Apostolus, in the time of S. 
Bernard. Then the Petrobusians, about five hun- 
dred years back, who also denied this same article, 
as S. Bernard (sermons 65 and 66 on the Cant, of 
Cant, and ep. 241) and S. Peter of Cluny (epp. I, 2, 
and elsewhere) record. This same opinion of the 
Petrobusians was followed by the Vaudois, about 
the year 1170, as Guidon says in his Summa ; and 
some Greeks were suspected on this matter, justifying 
themselves in the Council of Florence, and in their 
apology presented to the Council of Basle. In fine, 
Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, and those of their party, 
have altogether denied the truth of Purgatory : for 
although Luther, in disjnttatione Lipsicd, says that he 
firmly believed, yea certainly knew, that there was a 
Purgatory, still he afterwards retracted this in the book, 
J)e Abrogandd Missd Frivatd. And it is the custom 
of all the factions of our age to laugh at Purgatory, 
and despise prayers for the dead. But the Catholic 
Church has strongly opposed all these, each in its 
cime, having in her hand the Holy Scripture, out of 
which our forefathers have drawn many good reasons. 
For (i.) she has proved that alms, prayers, and 
other holy actions can help the departed : whence it 
follows that there is a Purgatory, for those in hell can 
have no help in their pains, and into Paradise, all 
good being there, we can convey none of ours for those 
who are therein ; wherefore it is for those who are in 

368 The Catholic Controversy, [partih. 

a third place, which we call Purgatory. (2.) She has 
proved that in the other world some of the departed 
have been delivered from their punishments and sins ; 
and since this cannot be done either in hell or in 
Paradise, it follows that there is a Purgatory. (3.) 
She has proved that many souls, before arriving in 
Paradise, passed through a place of punishment, which 
can only be Purgatory. (4.) Proving that the souls 
below the earth gave honour and reverence to Our 
Lord, she at the same time proved Purgatory, since 
this cannot be understood of those poor wretches who 
are in hell. (5.) By many other passages, with a 
variety of consequences, but all very apposite. In these 
one ought so much the more to defer to our doctors, 
because the passages which they allege now have been 
brought forward for the same purpose by those great 
ancient fathers, without our having to make new 
interpretations in order to defend this holy article ; 
which sufficiently shows how candidly we act in this 
matter : whereas our adversaries draw conclusions 
from the Holy Scripture which have never been 
thought of before, but are quite freshly started simply 
to oppose the Church. 

So our reasons will be in this order, (i.) We will 
quote the passages of Holy Scripture, then (2.) 
Councils, (3.) ancient Fathers, (4.) all sorts of 
authors. Afterwards we will bring forward reasons, 
and at last we will take up the arguments of the 
opposite party and will show them not to be sound. 
Thus shall we conclude by the belief of the Catholic 
Church. It will remain for the reader to avoid look- 
ing at things through the medium of passion, to think 
attentively over the soundness of our proofs, and to 

ART. II. c. III.] Church Doctrines, &c, 369 

throw himself at the feet of the divine goodness, 
crying out in all humility with David : Give me, 
understanding and I will search thy law, and I will 
keep it with my whole heartj^^ And then I doubt not 
that such men will return into the bosom of their 
grandmother the Church Catholic. 



This first argument is irrefragable. There is a time 
and a place of purgation for souls after this mortal 
life. Therefore there is a Purgatory ; since hell can- 
not allow any puigation, and Paradise can receive 
nothing which needs purgation. Now that there is a 
time and place of purgation after this life, here is the 

(i.) In Psalm Ixv. 12: We have passed through 
fire and water, and thou hast brought us out into a 
refreshment. This place is brought in proof of Pur- 
gatory by Origen (Hom. 25 m Numeros), and by S. 
Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi., and in sermon 3 on Ps. cxviii.), 
where he expounds the water of Baptism, and the fire 
of Purgatory. 

(2.) In Isaias (iv. 4) : If the Lord shall wash away 
the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away 

* Ps. cxviii. 34. 
III. 2 A 

37o The CatJiolic Controversy. [paktth. 

fha hlood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof by the 
sjnrit of judgment and the spirit of hurning. This 
purgation made in the spirit of judgment and of burn- 
ing is understood of Purgatory by S. Augustine, in 
the 20th Book of the City of God, ch. 25. And in 
fact this interpretation is favoured by the words pre- 
ceding, in which mention is made of the salvation of 
men, and also by the end of the chapter, where the 
repose of the blessed is spoken of; wherefore that 
which is said — the Lord shall wash away the filth — is 
to be understood of the purgation necessary for this 
salvation. And since it is said that this purgation is 
to be made in the spirit of heat and of burning, 
it cannot well be understood save of Purgatory and 
its fire. 

(3). In Micheas, in the 7th chapter (8, 9): Rejoice 
not, thou my enemy, over me, hecause I am fallen : 1 
shall arise, when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light. 
I will hear the wrath of the Lord, hecause I have sinned 
against him, until he judge my cause and execute judg- 
ment for me : he will hring me forth into the light, I 
shall hehold his justice. This passage was already 
applied to the proof of Purgatory amongst Catholics 
from the time of S. Jerome, 1200 years ago, as the 
same S. Jerome witnesses by the last chapter of Isaias ; 
where he says that the — luhen I shall sit in darkness . . . 
I will hear the wrath of the Lord . . . until He judge 
my cause — cannot be understood of any pain so properly 
as of that of Purgatory. 

(4.) In Zachary (ix. 11): Thou also hy the hlood 
of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the 
'pit wherein is no water. The pit from which these 
prisoners are drawn is the Purgatory from which Our 

ART. II. o. m.] Church Doctrines, &c, 37 ^ 

Lord delivered them in his descent into hell, and 
cannot be understood of Limbo, where the Fathers 
were before the resurrection of Our Lord in Abraham's 
bosom, because there was water of consolation there, 
as may be seen in Luke xvi. Whence S. Augustine, 
in the 90th Epistle, to Evodius, says that Our Lord 
visited those who were being tormented in hell, that 
is, in Purgatory, and that he delivered them from it; 
whence it follows that there is a place where the 
faithful are held prisoners and whence they can be 

(5.) In Malachy (iii. 3) : And he shall sit refining 
and cleansing the silver : and he shall purify the sons 
of Levi, and shall refine them as gold and as silver, &c. 
This place is expounded of a purifying punishment by 
Origen (Hom. 6 on Exodus), S. Ambrose (on Ps. 
xxxvi.), St. Augustine {de civ. Dei xx. 25), and S. 
Jerome (on this place). We are quite aware that 
they understand it of a purgation which will be at the 
end of the world by the general fire and conflagration, 
in which will be purged away the remains of the 
sins of those who will be found alive ; but we still 
are able to draw from this a good argument for our 
Purgatory. Eor if persons at that time have need of 
purgation before receiving the effects of the benediction 
of the supreme Judge, why shall not those also have 
need of it who die before that time, since some of 
these may be found at death to have remains of their 
imperfections. In truth if Paradise cannot receive 
any stains at that time, neither will it receive them any 
better at present. S. Irenseus in this connection, in 
chapter 29 of Book V., says that because the militant 
Church is then to mount up to the heavenly palace 

372 The Catholic Controversy, [parthl 

of the Spou>se, and will no longer have time for pur-* 
gatioD, her faults and stains will there and then be 
purged away by this fire which will precede the judg- 

(6.) I leave on one side the passage of Psalm xxxvii 
— Lord, rebuke me not in thine indignation nor 
chastise me in thy wrath: — which S. Augustine inter- 
prets of hell and Purgatory in such sense that to be 
rebuked in indignation refers to the eternal pains, and 
to be chastised * in wrath refers to Purgatory. 



In the ist Corinthians (iii. 13, 14, 15): The day of 
the Lord shall declare {every mans work), because it shall 
he revealed by fire^ and the fire shall try every mans 
work, of what sort it is. If any man's ivork abide 
which he hath built thereupon^ he shall receive a reward. 
If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he 
himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. This passage 
has always been held as one of the important and 
difficult ones of the whole Scripture. Now in it, as is 
easily seen by one who considers the whole chapter, 
the Apostle uses two similitudes. The first is of an 
architect who with solid materials builds a valuable 
house on a rock : the second is of one who on the 

* Corri'pi ; i.e., to be corrected by chastisement. [Tr.] 

ART. II. c. iv.j Church Doctrmes, &c. 373 

same foundation erects a house of boards, reeds, straw. 
Let us now imagine that a fire breaks out in both the 
houses. That which is of solid material will be out of 
danger, and the other will be burnt to ashes. And if 
the architect be in the first he will be whole and safe ; 
if he be in the second, he must, if he would escape, 
rush through fire and flame, and shall be saved yet so 
that he will bear the marks of having been in fire : 
he himself shall he saved ^ yet so as hyjire. The founda- 
tion spoken of in this similitude is Our Lord, of whom 
S. Paul says : I have -planted . . . and as a wise 
architect I have laid the foundation : . . . and then 
afterwards : For no one can lay another foundation hut 
that which is laid ; which is Christ Jestcs. The archi- 
tects are the preachers and doctors of the Gospel, as 
may be known by considering attentively the words of 
this whole chapter. And as S. Ambrose interprets, 
and also Sedulius on this place, the day of the Lord 
which is spoken of means the day of judgment, 
which in the Scripture is ordinarily called the day 
of the Lord, — as in Joel ii. : the day of the Lord ; in 
Sophonias i. : the day of the Lord is near ; and in the 
word that follows in our passage : the day of the Lord 
shall declare it ; for it is on that day that all the 
actions of the world will be declared in fire. When 
the Apostle says it shall he revealed hy fire, he suffi- 
ciently shows that it is the last day of judgment; [as] 
in the Second to the Thessalonians i. : ivhen the Lord 
Jesics shall he revealed from heaven ivith the angels of 
his power, in aflame of fire ; and in Psalm xcvi. : fire 
shall go hefore his face. The fire by which the archi- 
tect is saved — he himself shall he saved yet so as hy 
fire — can only be understood of the fire of Purgatory* 

374 ^-^^ Catholic Co7it7^oversy. [partih. 

For when the Apostle says lu shall he saved, he ex- 
cludes the fire of hell in which no one can be saved ; 
and when he says he shall he saved hy fire, and speaks 
only of him who has built on the foundation, wood, 
straw, stubble, he shows that he is not speaking of the 
fire which will precede the day of judgment, since by 
this will pass not only those who shall have built with 
these light materials, but also those who shall have 
built in gold, silver, &c. All this interpretation, besides 
that it agrees very well with the text, is also most 
authentic, as having been followed with common con- 
sent by the ancient Fathers. S. Cyprian (Bk. iv. ep. 
2) seems to make allusion to this passage. S. Ambrose, 
on this place, S. Jerome on the 4th of Amos, S. 
Augustine on Psalm xxxvi., S. Gregory {Dial. iv. 39), 
Rupert (in Gen. iii. 32), and the rest, are all express 
on the point; and of the Greeks, Origen in the 6th 
Homily on Exodus, Ecumeuius on this passage (where 
he brings forward S. Basil), and Theodoret quoted by 
S. Thomas in the ist Opusculum contra errores Grcec. 

It may be said that in this interpretation there is 
an equivocation and impropriety, inasmuch as the 
fire spoken of is taken now for that of rurgatory, 
now for that which will precede the day of judgment. 
We answer that it is a graceful manner of speech, 
by the contrasting these two fires. For notice the 
meaning of the sentence : the day of the Lord shall 
have light from the fire which will go before it, and 
as this day shall be lighted up by the fire, so this 
same day by the judgment shall cast light on the 
merit and defect of each work ; and as each work 
shall be brought clearly out, so the workers who will 
have worked with imperfection shall be saved by the 

ART. II. c. IV.] Church Doctrines, &c. 375 

fire of Purgatory. But besides this, if we should say 
that S. Paul uses the same word in different senses 
in the same passage it would be no new thing, for he 
employs words in this way in other places, but so 
properly that this serves as an ornament to his 
language: as in the 2d of Corinthians, 5th chapter: 
Him who knew no sin for us he hath made sin : — where 
who sees not that sm in the first part is taken in its 
proper sense, for iniquity ; and the second time 
figuratively, for him who bears the penalty of sin ? 

It may be said again that it is not said that he 
will be saved hy fire, but as hy fire, and that therefore 
we cannot conclude there is a Purgatorial fire, I 
answer that there is a true similitude in this passage. 
Por the Apostle means to say that he whose works 
are not absolutely solid will be saved, like the 
architect who escapes from the fire, but at the same 
time not without passing through the fire ; a fire of a 
different quality from that which burns in this world. 
It is enough that from this passage we evidently con- 
clude that many who will gain possession of the 
kingdom of paradise will pass through fire: now 
this will not be the fire of hell, nor the fire which 
will precede the judgment ; it will therefore be the 
fire of Purgatory. The passage is difficult and 
troublesome, but well considered it gives us a manifest 
conclusion for our contention. 

So much then as to the passages of Scripture by 
which we can learn that after this life there are a 
time and a place of purgation. 

Zl^ The Catholic Controversy. [part m 



The second argument which we draw from the Holy 
Word in favour of Purgatory is taken from the 
Second of the Machabees, chapter xii. ; where the 
Scripture relates that Judas Machabaeus sent to Jeru- 
salem twelve thousand drachms of silver for sacrifice 
to be offered for the sins of the dead, and afterwards 
it says : It is therefore a holy and luholcsovie thought 
to pray for the dead, that they may he loosed from sins. 
For thus do we argue. It is a holy and wholesome 
thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed 
from their sins ; therefore after death there will be 
time and place for the remission of sins ; but this 
place cannot be either hell or Paradise, therefore it is 
Purgatory. This argument is so correct that to 
answer it our adversaries deny the authority of the 
Book of Machabees, and hold it to be apocryphal, but 
in reality this is for lack of any other answer. For 
this Book has been held as authentic and sacred by 
the third Council of Carthage (c. 47), which was held 
about 1200 years ago, and at which S. Augustine 
assisted, as Prosper says {in Chron.) ; and by Innocent 
I. in the Epistle to Exuperius ; and by S. Augustine 
in the 1 8th Book of the City of God, c. 36, — whose 
words are these : " It is the Catholic Church which 
holds these books canonical, and not the Jews ; " 
and by the same S. Augustine, in the book De Doctrind 

ART. II. c. v.] Church Doctrines, &c, 2>77 

Christiand, chap. viii. ; and by Damasus, in the decree 
on the canonical books which he made in a council 
of seventy bishops ; and by many other Fathers whom 
it would be long to cite. So that to answer by deny- 
ing the authority of the book, is to deny at the same 
time the authority of antiquity. 

We know how many things are alleged in support 
of this negation, which things for the most part only 
show the difficulty there is in the Scriptures, not any 
falsehood in them. It only seems to me necessary to 
answer one or two objections that are made. They first 
say that the prayer was made to show the kind feeling 
those persons had towards the departed, not as if they 
thought the dead had need of prayer : — but this the 
Scripture contradicts by those words : that they may 
he loosed from sins. Secondly, they object that it is a 
manifest error to pray for the resurrection of the dead 
before the judgment ; because this is to presuppose 
either that souls rise again and consequently die, or 
that bodies do not rise again unless by means of the 
prayers and good actions of the living, which would 
be against the article / believe in the resurrection of 
the dead: now that these errors are presupposed in 
this place of the Machabees appears by these words : 
For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should 
rise again, it luoidd have seemed superfluous and vain 
to pray for the dead. The answer is that in this place 
they do not pray for the resurrection either of the 
soul or of the body, but only for the deliverance of 
souls. In this they presuppose the immortality of 
the soul. For if they had believed that the soul was 
dead with the body they would not have striven to 
further their release. And because among the Jews 

^yS The Catholic Controversy, [parthi. 

the belief in the immortality of the soul and the belief 
in the resurrection of bodies were so connected to- 
gether that he who denied one denied the other ; — to 
show that Judas Machabseus believed the immortality 
of the soul, it is said that he believed the resurrection 
of bodies. And in the same way the Apostle proves 
the resurrection of bodies by the immortality of the 
soul, although it might be that the soul was immortal 
without the resurrection of bodies. The followinsr 
occurs in the i st of Corinthians, chapter xv. : What 
doth it 'profit me if the dead rise not again ? Let its eat 
and drink, for to-morrow ive shall die. Now it would 
not at all follow that we might thus let ourselves run 
riot, even if there was no resurrection : for the soul, 
which would remain in existence, would suffer the 
penalty due to sins, and would receive the guerdon 
of her virtues. S. Paul then in this place takes the 
resurrection of the dead as equivalent to the immor- 
tality of the soul. There is therefore no ground for 
refusing the testimony of the Machabees in proof of 
a just belief. But if, in the very last resort, we 
would take it as the testimony of a simple but great 
historian — which cannot be refused us — we must at 
least confess that the ancient synagogue believed in 
Purgatory, since all that army was so prompt to pray 
for the departed. 

And truly we have marks of this devotion in other 
Scriptures which ought to make easier to us the recep- 
tion of the passage which we have just adduced. In 
Tobias, chap. iv. : Zay out thy hread and thy wine on the 
hurial of a just man ; and do not eat or drink thereof 
with the wicked. Certainly this wine and bread was 
not placed on the tomb save for the poor, in order 

ART. III. c. v.] Church Doctrines^ &c. 379 

that the soul of the deceased might be helped thereby, 
as the interpreters say commonly on this passage. It 
will perhaps be said that this Book is apocryphal, but 
all antiquity has always held it in credit. And indeed 
the custom of putting meat for the poor on sepulchres 
is very ancient even in the Catholic Church. For 
S. Chrysostom, who lived more than twelve hundred 
years ago, in the 3 2d Homily on the Book of S. 
Matthew, speaks of it thus : " Why on your friends' 
death do you call together the poor ? Why for them 
do you beseech the priests to pray ? " And what are 
we to think of the fasts and austerities which the 
ancients practised after the death of their friends ? 
The men of Jabes Galaad, after the death of Saul, 
fasted seven days over him. David and his -men did 
the same, over the same Saul, and Jonathan, and 
those who followed him, as we see in this [last] 
chapter of ist Kings, and in the ist chapter of 
2d Kings. One cannot think that it was for any 
other purpose than to help the souls of the departed ; 
— for to what else can one refer the fast of seven 
days ? So David, who, in the 2d Kings, chapter xii., 
fasted and prayed for his sick son, after his death 
ceased to fast, showing that when he fasted it was 
to obtain help for the sick child, which, when it died, 
dying young and innocent, had no need of help ; — 
wherefore David ceased fasting. Bede, more than 
700 years ago, interprets thus the end of the ist 
Book of Kings.* So that in the ancient Church, the 
custom already was to help by prayer and holy deeds 
the souls of the departed : — which clearly implies a 
faith in Purgatory. 

* In Sam. L. iv. c. lo. 

380 The Catholic Controversy. [parthi. 

And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly 
in the 1st of Corinthians, chap xv., appealing to it 
as praiseworthy and right. ^Vllat shall they do loho 
are ha-ptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at 
all? Why then are they baptized for them? This 
passage properly understood evidently shows that it 
was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, 
pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, 
in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for 
afflictions and penances ; as in S. Luke, chap xii., where 
Our Lord speaking of his Passion says : / have a 
baptism wherewith I ain to be baptized, and how am 1 
straitened until it be accomplished ! — and in S. Mark, 
chap X., he says : Can yoih drink of the chalice that 1 
drink of ; or be bap)tized with the baptism wherewithal 
am baptized? — in which places Our Lord calls pains 
and afflictions baptism. This then is the sense of that 
Scripture : if the dead rise not again, what is the use 
of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and 
fasting for the dead ? And indeed this sentence of 
S. Paul resembles that of Machabees quoted above : 
It is sitperjiuous and vain to pray for the dead if the 
dead rise not again. They may twist and transform 
this text with as many interpretations as they like, 
and there will be none to properly fit into the Holy 
Letter except this. But [secondly] it must not be 
said that the baptism of which S. Paul speaks is only 
a baptism of grief and tears, and not of fasts, prayers, 
and other works. For thus understood his conclusion 
would be very false. The conclusion he m^ ans to 
draw is that if the dead rise not again, and if the soul 
is mortal, in vain do we afflict ourselves for the dead. 
But, I pray you, should we not have more occasion to 

ART. III. 0. v.] Church Doctrines, &c, 381 

afflict ourselves by sadness for the death of friends if 
they rise no more — losing all hope of ever seeing them 
again — than if they do rise ? He refers then to the 
voluntary afflictions which they undertook to impetrate 
the repose of the departed, which, questionless, would 
be undergone in vain if souls were mortal and the dead 
rose not again. Wherein we must keep in mind what 
was said above, that the article of the resurrection of 
the dead and that of the immortality of the soul were 
so joined together in the belief of the Jews that he 
who acknowledged the one acknowledged the other, 
and he who denied the one denied the other. It 
appears then by these words of S. Paul that prayer, 
fasting, and other holy afflictions were practised for 
the departed. Now it was not for those in Paradise, 
who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who 
could get no benefit from it ; it was, then, for those 
in Purgatory. Thus did S. Ephrem expound it twelve 
hundred years ago, and so did the Fathers who disputed 
against the Petrobusians. 

The same can one deduce from the words of the 
Good Thief, in S. Luke, chap, xxiii., when, addressing 
Our Lord, he said : RemeTriber me %vhen thou comest into 
thy kingdom. For why should he have recommended 
himself, he who was about to die, unless he had 
believed that souls after death could be succoured 
and helped ? S. Augustine (Contra Jul., B. vi.) proves 
[from] this passage that sins are pardoned in the 
other world. 

382 The Catholic Co7itroversy. [parthl 



If there are some sins that can be pardoned in the 
other world it is neither in liell nor in heaven, there- 
fore it is in Purgatory. Now, that there are sins which 
are pardoned in the other world we prove, firstly, by 
the passage of S. Matthew in chap, xii., where Our 
Lord says that there is a sin ivhich cannot he forgiven 
either in this world or in the next : therefore tliere are 
sins which can be forgiven in the other world. For 
if there were no sins which could be forgiven in the 
other world, it was not now necessary to attribute 
this property of not being able to be forgiven in the 
next world to one sort of sins, but it sufficed to say it 
could not be forgiven in this world. When Our 
Lord had said to Pilate : My kingdom is not of this 
world, in S. John, chap, xviii., Pilate drew this conclu- 
sion : Art thou a king, then ? Which conclusion was 
approved by Our Lord, who assented thereto. So 
when he said that there is one sin which cannot be 
forgiven in the other world, it follows very properly 
that there are others which can. They try to say 
that these words, neither in this world nor in the ivorld 
to come, only signify, for ever, or, never ; as S. Mark 
says in chap, iii., shall never have forgiveness. That 
is quite true ; but our reason loses none of its force 
on that account. For either S. Matthew has properly 
expressed Our Lord's meaning or he has not : one 

ART. III. c. VI.] Chtirch Doctrines, &c, 383 

would not dare to say he has not, and if he has, it 
still follows that there are sins which can be forgiven 
in the other world, since Our Lord has said that there 
is one which cannot be forgiven in the other world. 
And please tell me — if S. Peter had said in S. John, 
chap. xiii. : Thou shalt never wash my feet either in this 
world or in the other, — would he not have spoken 
[improperly], since in the other world they might be 
washed 1 — and indeed he does say : thoio shalt not 
loash my feet for ever. We must not believe then 
that S. Matthew would have expressed the intention of 
Our Lord by these words, neither in this world nor in 
the next, if in the next there cannot be remission. 
We should laugh at a man who said : I will not 
marry either in this world or in the next, as if he 
supposed that in the next one could marry. He then 
who says a sin cannot be forgiven either in this world 
or in the next, implies that there may be remission of 
some sins in this world and also in the other. I am 
well aware that our adversaries try by various inter- 
pretations to parry this blow, but it is so well struck 
that they cannot escape from it, unless by starting a 
new doctrine. And in good truth it is far better, 
with the ancient Fathers, to understand properly and 
with all possible reverence the words of Our Lord, 
than, in order to found a new doctrine, to make them 
confused and ill-chosen. S. Augustine {de Civ. Dei, 
lib. xxi., c. 24), S. Gregory {Dialog, lib. iv., c. 39), 
Bede (in Marc, iii.), S. Bernard (Hom. 66 in Cant.), 
and those who have written against the Petrobusians, 
have used this passage in our sense, with such assurance 
that S. Bernard to declare this truth brings forward 
nothing more, so much account does he make of this. 

384 The Catholic Controversy. [parthi. 

In S. Matthew (v.), and in S. Luke (xii.) : Make, an 
agreement with thy adversary quickly, while thou art in 
the way with him ; lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee 
to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and 
thou he cast into prison. Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt 
not go out from thence till thoic pay the last farthing. 
Origen, S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, 
and S. Augustine say that the way which is meant in 
the whilst thou art in the way is no other than the 
passage of the present life : the adversary will be our 
own conscience, which ever fights against us and for 
us, that is, it ever resists our bad inclinations and 
our old Adam for our salvation, as S. Ambrose 
expounds, [and] Bede, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, and 
S. Bernard. Lastly, the judge is without doubt Our 
Lord in S. John (v.): The Father has given all judg- 
ment to the Son. The prison, again, is hell or the 
place of punishment in the other world, in which, as 
in a large jail, there are many buildings ; one for those 
who are damned, which is as it were for criminals, the 
other for those in Purgatory, which is as it were for 
debt. The farthing, of which it is said thou shalt not 
go out from theiice till thou pay the last farthing, are 
little sins and infirmities, as the farthing is the 
smallest money one can owe. Now let us consider a 
little where this repayment of which Our Lord speaks 
— till thou pay the last farthing — is to be made. And 
(i.) we find from most ancient Fathers that it is in 
Purgatory : Tertullian (Lib. de Animd c. x.), Cyprian 
(Epist., lib. iv. 2), Origen (Hom. 35 on this place of 
Luke), with Emissenus (Hom. 3 de Epiph.), S. 
Ambrose (in Luc. xii.), S. Jerome (in Matt, v.), S. 
Bernard (serm. de ohitu Humberti). (2.) When it is 

ABT. III. c. VI.] Chtcrch Doctrines, &c. 385 

said till thou 'pay the last farthing, is it not implied 
that one can pay it, and that one can so diminish 
the debt that there only remains at length its last 
farthing ? But just as when it is said in the Psalm 
(cix.) : Sit at my right hand until I make thy enemies, 
&c., it properly follows that at length he will make 
his enemies his footstool ; so when he says thou shalt 
not go out till thou pay, he shows that at length he 
will pay or will be able to pay. (3.) Who sees not 
that in S. Luke the comparison is drawn, not from a 
murderer or some criminal, who can have no hope of 
escape, but from a debtor who is thrown into prison 
till payment, and when this is made is at once let 
out ? This then is the meaning of Our Lord, that 
whilst we are in this world we should try by penitence 
and its fruits to pay, according to the power which we 
have by the blood of the Eedeemer, the penalty to 
"vvhich our sins have subjected us ; since if we wait 
till death we shall not have such good terms in 
Purgatory, when we shall be treated with severity of 

All this seems to have been also said by Our Lord 
in the 5 th of S. Matthew, where he says : He who is 
angry with his brother shall he guilty of the jiidgment ; 
and he who shall say to his brother, Raca, shall he guilty 
of the council ; hut he who shall say, thou fool, shall he 
guilty of hell fire: now it is only the third sort of 
offence which is punished with hell ; therefore in the 
judgment of God after this life there are other pains 
which are not eternal or infernal, — these are the 
pains of Purgatory. One may say that the pains 
will be suffered in this world ; but S. Augustine and 
the other Fathers understand them for the other 

III. 2 B 

386 The Catholic Controversy, [parthl 

world. And again may it not be that a man should 
die on the first or second offence which is spoken of 
here ? And when will such a one pay the penalty 
due to his offence ? Or if you will have that he pays 
them not, what place will you give him for his retreat 
after this world ? You will not assign him hell, 
unless you would add to the sentence of Our Lord, 
who does not assign hell as a penalty save to those 
who shall have committed the third offence. Lodge 
him in Paradise you must not, because the nature of 
that heavenly place rejects all sorts of imperfections. 
Allege not here the mercy of the Judge, because he 
declares in this place that he intends also to use 
justice. Do then as the ancient Fathers did, and say 
that there is a place where they will be purified, and 
then they will go to heaven above. 

In S. Luke, in the 1 6th chapter, it is written : 
Make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity, 
that when you shall fail they may receive you into 
eternal tabernacles. To fail, — what is it but to die ? 
— and the friends, — who are they but the Saints ? 
The interpreters all understand it so ; whence two 
things follow, — that the Saints can help men departed, 
and that the departed can be helped by the Saints. 
For in what other way can one understand these 
words : make to yourselves friends who may receive you ? 
They cannot be understood of alms, for many times 
the alms is good and holy and yet acquires us not 
friends who can receive us into eternal tabernacles, 
as when it is given to bad people with a holy and 
right intention. Thus is this passage expounded by 
S. Ambrose, and by S. Augustine (de Civ. Dei xii. 27). 
But the parable Our Lord is using is too clear to 

ART. III. c. VII.] Church Doctnnes, &c. 2>^y 

allow us any doubt of this interpretation ; for the 
similitude is taken from a steward who, being dismissed 
from his office and reduced to poverty, begged help 
from his friends, and Our Lord likens the dismissal 
unto death, and the help begged from friends unto the 
help one receives after death from those to whom one 
has given alms. This help cannot be received by 
those who are in Paradise or in hell, it is then by 
those who are in Purgatory. 



S. Paul to the Philippians (ii.) says these words : That 
in the name of Jesus every knee may how, of things in 
heaven, of things on earth, and of things under the earth 
{infernorum). In heaven we find the Saints on their 
knees, bending them at the name of the Eedeemer. 
On earth we find many such in the militant Church, 
but in hell where shall we find any of them ? David 
despairs of finding any when he says : JVho shall con- 
fess to thee in hell ? (Ps. vi.) So Ezechias in Isaias 
(xxxviii.) : For neither shall hell confess to thee. To 
which that also ought to be referred which David 
sings elsewhere (xlix. 1 6) : But to the sinner God hath 
said : Why dost thou declare my justices and take my 
covenant in thy mouth t For if God will receive no 
praise from the obstinate sinner, how should he permit 

388 The Catholic Controversy, [part m. 

the wretched damned to undertake this holy office. 
S. Augustine makes great account of this place for this 
purpose in the 1 2th book on Genesis (xxxiii.). There 
is a similar passage in the Apocalypse (v.) : Who is 
worthy to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof? 
And no man was able neither in heaven^ nor in earth, 
nor under the earth. And further down in the same 
chapter : And every creature which is in heaven, and on 
the earth, and under the earth . . . I heard all saying : 
To him that sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb, 
benediction and honour and glory and power for ever and 
ever. And the four living creatures said Amen. Does 
he not hereby uphold a Church, in which God is praised 
under the earth ? And what else can it be but that 
of Purgatory ? 



Aerius, as I have said above, was the first to teach 
against Catholics that the prayers they offered for the 
dead were superstitious. He still has followers in our 
age in this point. Our Lord in his gospel (Matt, xviii.) 
furnishes us our rule of action on such occasions. If 
thy brother shall offend thee . . . tell the Church. And if 
he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen 
and the publican. Let us hear then what the Church 
says on this matter, in Africa, at the 3d Council of 
Carthage (c. 29), and at the 4th (c. 79) ; in Spain, at 

ART. III. c. VIII.] Church Doctrines, &c. 389 

the Council of Braga (cc. 34, 39); in France, at the 
Council of Chalons (de cons. d. 2, Can. visum est), and 
at the 2d Council of Orleans (c. 14); in Germany, 
at the Council of Worms (c. 20) ; in Italy, at the 6th 
Council under Symmachus ; in Greece, as may be seen 
in their synods, collected by Martin of Braga (c. 6g). 
And by all these Councils you will see that the Church 
approves of prayer for the departed, and consequently 
of Purgatory. Afterwards, what she had defined by 
parts she defined in her general body at the Council 
of Lateran under Innocent III. (c. 66), at the Council 
of Florence in which all nations assisted (Sess. ult), 
and lastly at the Council of Trent (Sess. 25). 

But what more holy answer from the Church would 
one have than that which is contained in all her 
Masses ? Examine the Liturgies of S. James, S. Basil, 
S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, which all the Oriental 
Christians still use ; you will there see the commemo- 
ration of the dead, almost as it is seen in ours. If 
Peter Martyr, one of the learned men belonging to 
the adverse party, confesses, on the 3d chapter of the 
I st of Corinthians, that the whole Church has followed 
this opinion, I have no need to dwell on this proof. 
He says it has erred and failed, — ah ! who would 
believe that ! Who art thou that judgest the Church 
of God ? If any one hear not the Church, let him he 
to thee as the heathen and the- publican. The Church is 
the pillar and ground of truth, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it. If the salt lose its savour where-- 
with shall it he salted ; if the Church err by whom shall 
she be set right ? If the Church, the faithful guardian 
of truth, lose the truth, by whom shall the truth be 
found ? If Christ cast off the Church, whom will he 

390 The Catholic Controversy. [part in. 

receive, — he who admits no one but through the 
Church ? And if the Church can err, can you not also, 
Peter Martyr, fall into error? — without doubt: I 
will then rather believe that you have erred than the 



It is a beautiful thing, and one full of all consolation, 
to see the perfect correspondence which the present 
Church has with the ancient, particularly in belief. 
Let us mention what makes to our purpose concerning 
Purgatory. All the ancient Fathers have believed in it, 
and have testified that it was of Apostolic faith. Here 
are the authors we have for it. Among the disciples 
of the Apostles, S. Clement and S. Denis. Afterwards, 
S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, Ephrem, 
Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Gregory JSTyssen, Ter- 
tullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Origen, 
Boethius, Hilary, — that is, all antiquity as far back as 
1 200 years ago, which was the time before which these 
Fathers lived. It would have been easy for me to 
bring forward their testimonies, which are accurately 
collected in the books of our Catholics; — of Canisius, 
in his Catechism, of Sanders On the Visible Monarchy y 
of Genebrard in his Chronology, of Bellarmine in his 
Controversy on Purgatory, of Stapleton in his Promp- 
tuary. But particularly let those who would see at 

ART. III. c. IX.] Church Doctrines y &c, 391 

length and faithfully quoted the passages of the ancient 
Fathers, take up the work of Canisius, revised by 
Buzaeus. Certainly, however, Calvin spares us this 
trouble, in Book iii. of his Institutions (c. 5, S 10), 
where he thus speaks: "More than 1300 years ago 
it was received that prayers should be offered for the 
dead ; " and afterwards he adds : " But all, I confess, 
were dragged into error." We need not then seek out 
the names and the localities of the ancient Fathers 
to prove Purgatory, since in reckoning their value 
Calvin puts them at zero. What likelihood that one 
single Calvin should be infallible and that all antiquity 
should have gone wrong ! It is said that the ancient 
Fathers have believed in Purgatory to accommodate 
themselves to the vulgar. A fine excuse ! was it not 
for the Fathers to correct the people's error if they 
saw them erring, not to keep it up and give in to it ? 
This excuse then is but to accuse the Ancients. But 
how shall we say the Fathers have not honestly be- 
lieved in Purgatory, since Aerius, as I have said 
before, was held to be a heretic because he denied it ? 
It is a shame to see the audacity with which Calvin 
treats S. Augustine, because he prayed and got pi ayers 
for his mother S. Monica; and the only pretext he 
brings forward is that S. Augustine, in Book 21 of 
the de Civitate, seems to doubt about the fire of Purga- 
tory. But this is nothing to the purpose; for it is 
true that S. Augustine says one may doubt of the fire 
and of the nature thereof, but not of Purgatory. Now 
whether the purgation is made by fire or otherwise; 
whether or no the fire have the same qualities as that 
of hell, still there ceases not to be a purgation and 
a Purgatory. He puts not then Purgatory in question 

392 The Catholic Controversy. [part m. 

but the quality of it ; as will never be denied by those 
who will look how he speaks of it in chapters i6 and 
24 of the same Book of the de Civitate^ and in the work 
De Curd Pro Mortins Agendd, and a thousand other 
places. See then how we are in the track of the 
holy and ancient Fathers, as to this article of Purga- 



Here are two invincible proofs of Purgatory. The 
first : — there are sins which are light in comparison 
with others, and which do not make man guilty of 
hell. If then a man die in them, what will become 
of him ? Paradise receives nothing defiled (Apoc. 
xxi.) : hell is too extreme a penalty, it is not deserved 
by his sin : it must then be owned that he will stay 
in a Purgatory, where he will be duly purified, and 
afterwards go to heaven. Now that there are sins 
which do not make man deserving of hell, Our 
Saviour says in Matthew (v.) : Wliosoevcr is angry 
with his hrother shall he guilty of the judgment ; and 
whosoever shall say to his hrother, Baca, shall he guilty 
of the council ; and whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall 
he guilty of hell fire {gehennce ignis). What, I pray 
you, is it to be guilty of the gehenna of fire but to 
be guilty of hell ? Now this penalty is deserved by 
those only who call their brother, thou fool. Those 

ABT. III. 0. X.] Church Doctrines, &c. 393 

who get angry, and those who express their anger in 
words not injurious and defamatory, are not in the 
same rank ; but one deserves judgment, that is, that 
his anger should be brought under judgment, like the 
idle word (Matt, xii.) of which Our Lord says man 
%holl render an account in the day of judgment, — 
account must be rendered of it : the second deserves 
the council, that is, deserves to be deliberated about 
whether he shall be condemned or not (for Our Lord 
accommodates himself to men's way of speaking) : 
the third alone is the one who, without question, 
infallibly shall be condemned. Therefore the first 
and second kinds of sin do not make man deserving 
of eternal death, but of a temporal correction ; and 
therefore if a man die with these, by accident or 
otherwise, he must undergo the judgment of a tem- 
poral puuisliment, and when his soul is purged there- 
by he will go to heaven, to be with the blessed. Of 
these sins the Wise Man speaks (Prov. xxiv.) : The, 
just shall fall seven times a day : for the just cannot 
sin, so long as he is just, with a sin which deserves 
damnation ; it means then that he falls into sins to 
which damnation is not due, which Catholics call 
venial, and these can be purged away in the other 
world in Purgatory. 

The second reason is, that after the pardon of sin 
there remains part of the penalty due to it. As for 
example, in the 2d of Kings, chap, xii., the sin is 
forgiven to David, the Prophet saying to him: The 
Lord hath also taken away thy sin : thou shalt not die. 
Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the 
enemies of the Lord to blaspheme for this thing, thy 
child shall die the death. 

III. 2 C 

3 5282 00078 8771 


Wim ? ^ ^Q( 


MAR 1 

' 1^99 








DEMCO 13829810 

STACKS BT1100.F7 1909x 

The Catholic controversy 

3 5282 00078 8771